Legal Opinion

Donlin v. Carlow

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurr, J.

This is a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Buies of Civil Practice and pursuant to section 476 of the Civil Practice Act authorizing the entry of judgment at any stage of the proceedings on the admissions of the defendants or any defendant and for judgment after striking out the answers of defendants Carlow and Bobertson as sham. The action is to recover the principal and interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on a demand joint and several negotiable promissory notes for the sum of $10,000. The answer of J. L. Hill, who is jointly and severally…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Sheridan v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Orvis v. . CurtissNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  4. General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  5. Brown v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1918

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Yormark v. WaldmanNew York Supreme Court · 1926
  2. North River Mortgage Corp. v. 254 Sixth Ave. Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Vom Lehn v. EgbertNew York Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API