Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank

265 A.D. 966, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6772

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1942·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In our opinion (1) this is an action at law for money had and received by respondent bank to the use of the plaintiff's assignor; (2) the papers upon which the warrant of attachment was granted are sufficient in law to warrant the granting thereof; and (3) Johannes Kaiv, Acting Consul General, had full authority on behalf of the defendant to make the motion to vacate the warrant, and Messrs. Kirlin, Campbell, Hiclcox, Keating & McGrann had full authority to make said motion on behalf of respondents. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., ‘concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In our opinion (1) this is an action at law for money had and received by respondent bank to the use of the plaintiff's assignor; (2) the papers upon which the warrant of attachment was granted are sufficient in law to warrant the granting thereof; and (3) Johannes Kaiv, Acting Consul General, had full authority on behalf of the defendant to make the motion to vacate the warrant, and Messrs. Kirlin, Campbell, Hiclcox, Keating & McGrann had full authority to make said motion on behalf of respondents. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., ‘concur.

Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank, 265 A.D. 966, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

265 A.D. 966 (Buxhoeveden v. Estonian State Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related