Legal Opinion

Mendelsohn v. R. Simpson & Co.

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

Decided April 6, 1944PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUntebmyeb, J.

The action is for replevin which, to the extent that it concerns the appellant, is for the recovery of four pieces of jewelry, each of which is the subject of a separate cause of action covered by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action of the complaint.

These four pieces of jewelry had been intrusted for sale to Mrs. Margaret Boyle, a resident of Washington, D. C., by one Jack Blauweiss, a jewelry broker of New York City, who had secured them for that purpose from the plaintiff. Instead of selling the jewelry Mrs. Boyle first pledged it with George D. Horning, Inc., a firm of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Silsbury & Calkins v. McCoon & ShermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
  3. Phelps v. . McQuadeNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Whipple v. . Brown Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  5. Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Securities And Exchange Commission v. Dennis LevineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
  2. Hoffman v. AlpernCity of New York Municipal Court · 1948
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. LevineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API