Legal Opinion
Quinn v. Bancroft-Jones Corp.
District Court, W.D. New York
Decided January 2, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
The ancillary receivers herein were appointed May 2,1925. At the time of their appointment various actions were pending against the defendant, and in the action of the Wilson Corporation against defendant judgment was entered after the appointment of the ancillary reeeiv■ers, to wit, on the 4th of May, 1925. Other judgments, recovered by Walbridge & Co., William Bayley Company, Penn Metal Corporation,'and others, were entered thereafter.
A motion was made on November 11th by the receivers in the County Court to require the county clerk to cancel and discharge of record…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thompson v. Phenix InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Wiswall v. SampsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Stout v. LyeSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Horn v. Pere Marquette R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1907
- Woerishoffer v. North River Constraction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Medford, Or. v. Stewart Fruit Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1927
- Jarvis v. Technical Land, Inc. (In Re Technical Land, Inc.)District Court, District of Columbia · 1994
- Modart, Inc. v. Penrose Industries Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Modart, Inc. v. Penrose Industries Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
- Lehman v. HeberleDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.