Bienenstok v. Ammidown
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from a judgment of the Special Term. Action to recover from the defendants the proceeds of certain wool alleged to have been fraudulently purchased from the plaintiffs by the Rittenhouse Manufacturing Company, of which the defendant Ammidown was the president. The following is the opinion at Special Term:
1Opinion of the CourtMgAdah, J.
The plaintiffs, wool dealers at St. Louis, Mo., in September, 1890, sold to a corporation known as the Rittenhouse Manufacturing Company, located at Passaic, Hew Jersey, a quantity of wool, aggregating in value about $34,888.17. The transaction on the part of the Rittenhouse Company was conducted by Mr. Gardner, its manager, through a firm of wool, brokers, known as Salter Brothers. Mr. Ammidown, one of the defendants, was president of the Rittenhouse Manufacturing Company, and at the same- time-senior member of the firm of Ammidown & Smith, composed of the defendants. Ammidown owned about…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- National Bank v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Matter of Cavin v. . GleasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Stephens v. . Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Holden v. . New York and Erie BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Mowrey v. WalshNew York Supreme Court · 1828
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Northern Mariana Islands v. MillardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Dwelle-Kaiser Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Gerardo Garcia, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. RJ NY Restorations Inc., North Shore Contractor Services Corp., and Surjit SinghDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2025