Legal Opinion

German v. Snedeker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 29, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownley, J.

Plaintiff’s complaint has been dismissed on motion made by the defendants under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon the theory that on the conceded facts she has suffered no *597damage, as a result of the transactions stated therein. It is alleged (and we must assume for the purposes of this motion that the charge is true) that securities carried by the defendants as her brokers were transferred from her account to that of her husband; and that at the time of this unauthorized transfer a substantial credit balance in her account was appropriated by the defendants. Her damages are based…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hunt v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  2. McIntyre v. WhitneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Andres Iglesias v. The United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
  2. Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1972
  3. Aubrey Kaufman v. Diversified Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
  4. Gelb v. Zimet Bros.New York Supreme Court · 1962
  5. German v. SnedekerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939

1 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