Legal Opinion

Anninger v. Hohenberg

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

The defendants, who admittedly owe the plaintiffs $8,572.58, seek permission under section 51-a, of the Civil Practice Act, to notify Josef Schmied, administrator and liquidator of the plaintiffs’ business in Austria, of the pendency of this action so that Schmied might assert whatever claim he has to funds of the defendants, attached here in satisfaction of plaintiffs’ concededly valid demand.

The facts are free from dispute. Since 1872 the plaintiffs, who are Jews, were in business in Austria. When the German Reich enveloped Austria, the plaintiffs' business was seized and appropriated by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pouch v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  2. Post v. EmmettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Koninklijke Lederfabriek " Oisterwijk " N. V. v. Chase National BankNew York Supreme Court · 1941
  2. St. George Osborne v. Banco Aleman-AntioquenoCity of New York Municipal Court · 1941
  3. Plasticos Industriales Extrusos v. Bank of Nova ScotiaNew York Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API