Legal Opinion

Furman v. Furman

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1941PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.

This is a motion made by the defendant Furman pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint on the ground that a prior action between the parties is res judicata herein.

The" complaint alleges that the plaintiff and the defendant Fur-man, his wife, deposited the sum of $30,528.05 in various banks under various fictitious names for the plaintiff’s sole benefit; that the defendant wife withdrew and converted this money to her own use without the knowledge or consent of" the plaintiff, and that the defendant wife turned over $20,000 of this sum to…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. EmeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Ford v. . HarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  4. Place v. . HaywardNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. Berman v. CoakleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
  2. Pattison v. PattisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
  3. Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Industries, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Richardson v. Shearson/American Express Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
  5. Brand v. ElledgeArizona Supreme Court · 1961

9 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