Legal Opinion

In re Friedman

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 7, 1907PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHough, District Judge

(after stating the facts). The story of Celia Friedman is inherently preposterous, as well as demonstrably false. I am convinced that she received (contemporaneously with the sale) $3,850, and has since acted as the confederate of her hiding husband. Considering the relationship between Mrs. Friedman and Levinson, and the connection by marriage with Wiltchick, I am convinced that the three have been acting in concert to protect the proceeds of the Friedman fraud from creditors. The $3,070 deposited by Max Levinson in the Jenkins Trust Company he received from Mrs. Friedman. His tale of hidden…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. In re FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1908
  2. Henkin v. FousekCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
  3. In re LummusDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1913
  4. Cohen v. HesselCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1922
  5. In re J. H. Small Shoe Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1926

4 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