Legal Opinion

Koninklijke Lederfabriek " Oisterwijk " N. V. v. Chase National Bank

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1941PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalter, J.

This apparently simple motion for leave to serve a notice of the pendency of the action has given rise to questions of unusual importance. The action is at law to recover money deposited with defendant by a Netherlands corporation. In anticipation of the German invasion the Netherlands Parliament enacted a law authorizing Netherlands corporations to change their “ seat ” (which apparently means more than principal office and seems to be substantially in the nature of domicile) from the territory of the Netherlands in Europe to other Netherlands territory, and defendant’s depositor took the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  3. United States v. BelmontSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  4. United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Surace v. DannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1928

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Republic of China v. American Express Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
  2. Amstelbank, N. V. v. Guaranty Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Federal Motorship Corp. v. Johnson & HigginsNew York Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Kuerschner & Rauchwarenfabrik, A.G. v. New York Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
  5. Bank of Buffalo v. Vesterfelt, New York County Courts1962

5 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