Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer

The Superior Court of New York City

Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer

17 Jones & S. 311

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 2, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Jones & S. 311 (Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer, 17 Jones & S. 311 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—The plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant as receiver of the property and effects of the corporation. The corporation was not dissolved, and a suit, against it could proceed to judgment (Knauer v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co., 46 Super. Ct. 370).

The plaintiffs were authorized by the court that appointed the defendant receiver to commence this action. This was’not a determination that the plaintiffs had a good cause of action against the defendant as receiver. The court, in granting leave to sue, was not called to, and did not pass upon the question of the receiver’s liability.

The judgment and order are reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. The order appealed from is affirmed, with $10 costs.

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

Per Curiam.

—The plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant as receiver of the property and effects of the corporation. The corporation was not dissolved, and a suit, against it could proceed to judgment (Knauer v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co., 46 Super. Ct. 370).

The plaintiffs were authorized by the court that appointed the defendant receiver to commence this action. This was’not a determination that the plaintiffs had a good cause of action against the defendant as receiver. The court, in granting leave to sue, was not called to, and did not pass upon the question of the receiver’s liability.

The judgment and order are reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. The order appealed from is affirmed, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Jones & S. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleischauer-v-dittenhoefer-nysuperctnyc-1883.