Legal Opinion

Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. v. L. E. Waterman Pen Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 30, 1959PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff has made a sufficient prima facie showing of fraud on the part of defendants to sustain an attachment, and defendants, in moving to vacate, have failed to demonstrate that plaintiff cannot ultimately succeed (Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, 234 N. Y. 372, 377; Bard-Parker Co. v. Dictograph Prods. Co., 258 App. Div. 638).

Plaintiff, in purchasing the business of the defendants, received express warranties that there would be no changes in accounts receivable and inventory in excess of $150,000 up to the date of takeover. Any deficiency over that amount was to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet RepublicNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Bard-Parker Co. v. Dictograph Products Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Chase Manhattan Bank (Nat. Ass'n) v. Banque Intra, SADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1967
  2. Marklin v. Drew Properties Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
  3. Trigo Hnos., Inc. v. Premium Wholesale Groceries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1976
  4. Aerotrade, Inc. v. Banque Nationale De La Republique D'HaitiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1974
  5. Kend v. Chroma-Glo, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1970

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

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

Powered by the Exa API