Lauro v. Barker

299 U.S. 521, 57 S. Ct. 321
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 18, 1937·No. No. 374·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The motion of the appellees to affirm the judgment is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. (1) Bellingham Bay Co. [522] v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314, 318, 319; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 81; Wick v. Chelan Electric Co., 280 U. S. 108, 110, 111. (2) Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co., 109 U. S. 401.

Mr. Henry N. Rapaport, with whom Messrs. Irving S. Rapaport and Robert S. Garson were on the brief, for appellants. Messrs. Lawrence S. Greenbaum, Benjamin J. Rabin, Theodore S. Jaffin, Benjamin Kaplan, and Maurice Finkelstein were on the brief for appellees.

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

Lauro v. Barker, 299 U.S. 521, 57 S. Ct. 321 (1937).

299 U.S. 521 (Lauro v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau
80 A.D.2d 186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In re Ogilvie
83 Misc. 2d 896 (Rockland County Court, 1975)
In re the Accounting of Security Trust Co.
189 Misc. 748 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1947)
In re Colonial Trust Co.
189 Misc. 335 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)
Vanneck v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co.
185 Misc. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)