Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Railway Co.

110 A.D. 923, 96 N.Y.S. 1132

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Railway Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 A.D. 812 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1905·Published

Opinion

Motion, for stay granted, unless plaintiff will stipulate that any of the bondholders may intervene and serve answers on or before 12th December, 1905, to which a reply will be served within three days without the right to said bondholders to amend their answers as of course thereafter. The trial of the action to proceed on eighteenth December as specified in th.e order of twenty-eighth November. If plaintiff will so stipulate, motion for stay denied. No costs to either party. All concurred. Chester, J., not sitting.

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

Motion, for stay granted, unless plaintiff will stipulate that any of the bondholders may intervene and serve answers on or before 12th December, 1905, to which a reply will be served within three days without the right to said bondholders to amend their answers as of course thereafter. The trial of the action to proceed on eighteenth December as specified in th.e order of twenty-eighth November. If plaintiff will so stipulate, motion for stay denied. No costs to either party. All concurred. Chester, J., not sitting.

Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Railway Co., 110 A.D. 923, 96 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

110 A.D. 923 (Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Oneonta, Cooperstown & Richfield Springs Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.