Legal Opinion
McGrath v. Agency of Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 9, 1952PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.
The Court has before it cross motions for summary judgment under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Both parties agree that there are no issues of fact requiring a trial and that judgment depends only upon interpretation of law.
During 1939, four firms of Hamburg, Germany delivered to the Hamburg Agency of Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China 1 2 (hereinafter referred to as Chartered Bank) eighteen bills of exchange in the amount of $6,217.22 for collection in the Philippines. They were transmitted to three branches of Chartered…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Propper v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Blackstone v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Sawyer v. HoagSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SturmSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Commercial Bank of Pa. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.District Court, District of Columbia · 1993
- Republic of China v. National City Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Hoffmann v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1999
- McGranery v. Agency of Chartered BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
- Dye v. General Motors Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.