Gray v. Heinze

174 A.D. 924, 160 N.Y.S. 1131

This text of 174 A.D. 924 (Gray v. Heinze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gray v. Heinze, 174 A.D. 924, 160 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that there was a misappropriation of the funds of the railroad company by the defendants Heinze and Schultze, and that the other defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonably active discharge of their duties should have knowledge of such wrongful use and have prevented the same.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D. 924, 160 N.Y.S. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-heinze-nyappdiv-1916.