Austin v. . Rawdon
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment entered upon an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the eighth district, affirming a judgment of the Special Term dismissing a proceeding taken against the defendant, Groesbeck, under section 375 of the Code of Procedure, with costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment entered upon an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the eighth district, affirming a judgment of the Special Term dismissing a proceeding taken against the defendant, Groesbeck, under section 375 of the Code of Procedure, with costs. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. cited Campbell v. Perkins (4 Seld., 430); Brown v. Treat (1 Hill, 225); Green v. Green Bank (2 Marshall, 485); Corbett v. Packington (6 Barn. & Cress., 268); Brown v. Sanford (2 Salk., 440); Kennedy v. Stalworth (18 Ala., 288); Marquat v. Marquat (2 Kern., 336);…
1Opinion of the Court
Lott, Ch. C.
The only question presented for our decision is, whether this is an action ex contractu or ex deKcto. To determine this, it is necessary to examine the complaint with care. It alleges that the Commercial Bank of Buffalo, of which the plaintiff had been appointed receiver, did, previous to such appointment, deposit in the hands of the defendants certain securities, being evidences of debt, consisting of Illinois State scrip and Michigan State warrants, and a note or bill made by G. H. Huddell & Co., indorsed by Walbridge & Hayden, all of which were the property and effects of the…
2Cited by32 opinions
- Smith v. . HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kerr Steamship Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Supervisors of Kewaunee County v. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Holt Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Arthur Jordan Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1900
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hutchings, Sealy & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1908
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.