Holmes v. Seaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes v. Seaman

91 N.Y.S. 1098, 99 A.D. 624

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 1098 (Holmes v. Seaman) 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

Holmes v. Seaman, 91 N.Y.S. 1098, 99 A.D. 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIA M.

Affirmed on the authority of McCord v. McCord, 40 App. Div. 273, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1049.

LAUGHLIN, J.,

concurs solely upon the ground that the material facts in these cases are not distinguishable from those in the McCord Case; but, were it not for that precedent, he would vote for reversal upon* the ground that the assignment was valid as between the parties, and the assignee at least obtained an equitable lien, enforceable as against the assignors. PATTERSON, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIA M.

Affirmed on the authority of McCord v. McCord, 40 App. Div. 273, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1049.

LAUGHLIN, J.,

concurs solely upon the ground that the material facts in these cases are not distinguishable from those in the McCord Case; but, were it not for that precedent, he would vote for reversal upon* the ground that the assignment was valid as between the parties, and the assignee at least obtained an equitable lien, enforceable as against the assignors. PATTERSON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 1098, 99 A.D. 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-seaman-nyappdiv-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack