Legal Opinion

Ross v. Ostrander

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1948PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pécora, J.

Both parties move for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Eules of Civil Practice in an action brought to recover the equivalent in American dollars of a judgment rendered against the deceased defendant by the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, London, England. There is clearly no issue of fact to be tried and the disposition of the *141cause depends upon what recognition this State will give to the English judgment.

The deceased defendant, a citizen of the United States, who had been residing in England for about fifteen years, in November, 1938, entered into a lease for a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  3. Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  4. Kane v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. GoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bank of Montreal v. KoughDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1977
  2. Petroleum Financial Corp. v. StoneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1953
  3. Plugmay Ltd. v. National Dynamics Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1966
  4. Southern v. SouthernCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Frederick Fell, Inc. v. WallaceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API