Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber

240 A.D. 976

Opinion

Order granting reargument of motion to punish appellants for contempt, and holding them, upon such reargument, in contempt, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The record does not establish a violation of the order of April 13, 1933, in the disposition of the proceeds of the check received on May 6, 1933. Nothing indicates that that money could have been received at all by the appellants until after the close of the month of April, and it was, therefore, after-acquired property not under the restraint of the order of April thirteenth. (Mandelbaum v. Danziger, 240 App. Div. 860; McGivney v. Childs, 41 Hun, 607; Potter v. Low, 16 How. Pr. 549; Rainsford v. Temple, 3 Misc. 294; Protter v. Lovell, 91 id. 417.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber, 240 A.D. 976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

240 A.D. 976 (Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mandelbaum v. Danziger
240 A.D. 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Potter v. Low
16 How. Pr. 549 (New York Supreme Court, 1858)
Rainsford v. Temple
22 N.Y.S. 937 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)