Legal Opinion

Mintz v. Joseph Clavin & Co.

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

Decided December 3, 1957PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcNally, J.

The plaintiffs-respondents, by their brief, concede the sole and determinative issue on this appeal to be whether they are bound by the composition agreement between the corporate defendant-appellant and its creditors; if not, then the judgment should be affirmed, otherwise it should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed.

On this record, we find that plaintiffs, through the plaintiff, Lee R. Mintz, a member of the committee of creditors of the corporate defendant, became parties to the composition agreement between said defendant and its creditors, thereby obligating plaintiffs to accept…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bernardine v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. Small v. . HousmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. White v. . KuntzNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  4. Hanover National Bank v. BlakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1894

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Metro Burak, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  2. Metro Burak, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API