Legal Opinion

Broderick v. Cox

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1937PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHinkle y, J.

Motions have been made to strike out the answers and for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in each of the above-entitled actions. Motion has been made by defendant Elderfield for a dismissal of the complaint in the action brought against him.

The plaintiff claims that each of these defendants is a cosigner with one Leonard Bevilacqua of an agreement. Plaintiff claims that the agreement was given in order that the East Side Bank of Niagara Falls, of which these defendants and Bevilacqua were stockholders, might continue to function as a bank. Plaintiff *284claims that the questions…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Curry v. MacKenzieNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. White v. BevilacquaNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Mut. Liability Ins. v. Tuscaloosa Veneer Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API