Legal Opinion

Owen v. Blumenthal

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.

Motion is to strike out the answers and to award judgment pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

In this action for an accounting the facts are these: In 1928 the municipality of Medellin, Republic of Colombia, issued $9,000,000 of its six and one-half per cent gold bonds, due in 1954. The bonds were issued under what was termed a “ Fiscal Agency Agreement,” the only parties to this agreement being the munici*214pality, as obligor, and the firms of Hallgarten & Co. and Kissell, Kinnicutt & Co., as “ Fiscal Agents.” These two latter firms were also the underwriters of this…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Yonofsky v. WernickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  2. Bon Temps Agency, Ltd. v. HickeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Owen v. BlumenthalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API