Legal Opinion
Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 1, 1941PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
This is a motion by the defendant The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China (hereafter referred to as The Chartered Bank), made pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the supplemental complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the moving defendant. The plaintiff brings this action to restrain the payment or presentment for payment of drafts under a letter of credit issued to secure the purchase price of certain merchandise, bought by the plaintiff and his coadventurer, one Schwarz, who…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- McClare v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Frey & Son, Inc. v. E. R. Sherburne Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Lawyers' Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Lamborn v. . the Lake Shore Banking and Trust CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Brenntag International Chemicals, Inc. v. Bank of India, Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Norddeutsche Landesbank GzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Harris Corporation v. National Iranian Radio and Television and Bank Melli Iran, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
- Intraworld Industries, Inc. v. Girard Trust BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Kmw International v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- O'Grady v. First Union National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.