Saul v. . Barse

113 N.E. 1063, 218 N.Y. 719, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1233
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 13, 1916·Published

Opinion

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars ■ costs. Motion to amend remittitur granted and remittitur amended by adding thereto: “ The appellant argued in this court that the action should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction as brought in derogation of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal court in the receivership action of Morehead v. Strycker to liquidate the syndicate affairs.” (See 218 N. Y. 631.) .

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

Saul v. . Barse, 113 N.E. 1063, 218 N.Y. 719, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1233 (N.Y. 1916).

113 N.E. 1063 (Saul v. . Barse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mamaroneck Sash, Door and Trim Company, Inc. v. . Wood
112 N.E. 1065 (New York Court of Appeals, 1916)