Matter of Smith v. . O.M. Osterheld Son
129 N.E. 901, 229 N.Y. 525, 1920 N.Y. LEXIS 723
Opinion
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Caedozo, McLaughlin, Crane and Elkus, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Smith v. . O.M. Osterheld Son, 129 N.E. 901, 229 N.Y. 525, 1920 N.Y. LEXIS 723 (N.Y. 1920).
129 N.E. 901 (Matter of Smith v. . O.M. Osterheld Son) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re the Claim of Vincent
223 A.D. 153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
Claim of Norris v. New York Central Railroad
158 N.E. 879 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)