Gallopin v. Winsor

234 A.D. 601
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1931·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We consider that the government of Mexico is a necessary party in interest in the fund proposed to be impounded by this receivership order; and since it is a sovereign State and cannot be made a party without its consent, there was no jurisdiction to appoint receivers of its funds or to issue an injunction against the disposition thereof. We think the order was improvident and should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Finch, P. J., McAvoy, Martin, O’Malley and Sherman, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Gallopin v. Winsor, 234 A.D. 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

234 A.D. 601 (Gallopin v. Winsor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frazier v. Hanover Bank
204 Misc. 922 (New York Supreme Court, 1953)
Lamont v. Travelers Insurance
254 A.D. 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Issaia v. Russo-Asiatic Bank
155 Misc. 495 (New York Supreme Court, 1935)
Ezra v. Lamont
149 Misc. 912 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)