O'Brien v. Barkley
28 N.Y.S. 1049, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 520, 78 Hun 609
Opinion
After a careful examination of the briefs presented by counsel, and the authorities therein cited, we have reached the conclusion that the action was correctly disposed of by the court below. The elaborate and able review of the facts and law of the case by the learned trial judge renders it unnecessary for us to write an opinion. The motion should be denied, without costs to either party. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
O'Brien v. Barkley, 28 N.Y.S. 1049, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 520, 78 Hun 609 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).
28 N.Y.S. 1049 (O'Brien v. Barkley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jenkins v. First Nat. Bank
26 F. Supp. 312 (N.D. Texas, 1989)
Graves v. First National Bank in Grand Forks
138 N.W.2d 584 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1965)
In Re the Will of Liberman
18 N.E.2d 658 (New York Court of Appeals, 1939)
Davidson v. Wilmington Trust Co.
2 A.2d 285 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1938)
Clarke v. Clarke
57 P.2d 5 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1936)
In re the Estate of Andrus
156 Misc. 268 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1935)
Dwyer v. Kuchler
174 A. 154 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1934)
In re the Estate of Forte
149 Misc. 327 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1933)
In re Estate of Smith
240 N.W. 432 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1932)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of Van Derveer
121 Misc. 691 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1923)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of Haight
51 A.D. 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)