Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
The defendant tea company made a motion to direct the sheriff of Kings county to return poundage fees on execution. ■ The motion was denied.
Following an affirmance of the plaintiff’s judgment in the Court of Appeals (264 N. Y. 390), the attorney issued an execution thereon to the sheriff and demanded that a levy be made on five or six stores of defendant in Brooklyn. The sheriff’s counsel told plaintiff’s attorney that in view of the well-known solvency of this defendant he did not believe it would be necessary to make any levy, but that it might be possible to communicate with' defendant and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Campbell v. . CothranNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Grimmer v. . the Tenement House Dept. of the City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Adams v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Judson v. . GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Southern Industries, Inc. v. JeremiasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Dempsey v. John A. Lynch Co.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Thornton v. Montefiore HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Downe Communications, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- In re the Accounting of BatyiNew York Surrogate's Court · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.