Milbank v. De Riesthal
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Samuel W. Milbank, as receiver, etc., against Helene De Riesthal and William C. Bowers, impleaded, to declare void certain judgments. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
The object of this suit was to obtain a judgment declaring void certain judgments obtained by the defendants Helene De Riesthal and William C. Bowers against a corporation known as the A. De Riesthal Company, of which the plaintiff, Milbank, is now the receiver. The ground upon which the complaint predicated the plaintiff’s demand for relief was that such judgments were invalid because in contravention of section 48 of chapter 688 of the Laws of 1892, known as the “Stock Corporation Law.” June 1,1893, the defendant Bowers loaned the A. De Riesthal Company $3,000, receiving therefor a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wilson v. City BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- National Bank v. WarrenSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bank of Attica v. Pottier & Stymus Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1888
- Kraft v. . the Freeman Printing and Publishing AssociationNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Second National Bank of Allentown v. Pottier & Stymus Manufacturing Co.The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1888
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bielaski v. National City Bank of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1932
- Estate of GoetzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Koechl v. Leibinger & Oehm Brewing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- In re Muehlfeld & Haynes Piano Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Lopez v. Merchants & Farmer's National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.