Pike v. Wasserman
New York Supreme Court
.Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of the property, assets, and effects which were of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski, against Benoit Wasserman, Herman Beiners, Catharine M. Beiners, Henry Bischoff, Moses Lindheim, Solomon L. Simpson, Mechanics’ & Traders’ Bank, Francisco Garcia, Vincente Guerra, Abraham Rosenstein, Helen Wollman, Leopold Schmitt, Robert J. Dean, Edward M. Dean, Alvin J. Donally, John J. Gorman, as sheriff…
Read the full summary
.Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Henry Pike, Jr., as receiver of the property, assets, and effects which were of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski, against Benoit Wasserman, Herman Beiners, Catharine M. Beiners, Henry Bischoff, Moses Lindheim, Solomon L. Simpson, Mechanics’ & Traders’ Bank, Francisco Garcia, Vincente Guerra, Abraham Rosenstein, Helen Wollman, Leopold Schmitt, Robert J. Dean, Edward M. Dean, Alvin J. Donally, John J. Gorman, as sheriff of the city and county of New York, and Charles C. Allen, as late receiver of the copartnership of Haas & Pohalski. The…
1Per curiam
Both being actions in the supreme court, there seems to be no doubt but that this court has the power to restrain the trial of one until the final disposition of the other, if justice demands it. We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, and order granted restraining the trial of the action *954subsequently brought until the final determination of the action first instituted; $10 costs and disbursements of the appeal to the appellant
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wile v. Burns Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Pitman v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909