Legal Opinion
Byrnes v. Owen
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 9, 1926PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hiscock, Ch. J.
The Appellate Division, reversing .the Special Term, has granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint as not stating a cause of action and the subject presented to us for consideration is the correctness of this decision. I shall pass for the moment the question whether the defendants Owen are proper parties and consider the more important questions involved in the appeal.
The plaintiff for several years has been the wife of the defendant Byrnes, and the object of her action is relief from what she alleges has been a fraudulent transfer of real estate of which her…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Valentine v. . RichardtNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Mack v. . LattaNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Decker v. . DeckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Phelps v. . PhelpsNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Melenky v. . MelenNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Newin Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Griffith v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Burbrooke Manufacturing Co. v. St. George Textile Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Dorff v. BornsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Matter of City of New York (Cropsey Ave.)New York Court of Appeals · 1935
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.