Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber

240 A.D. 976

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 976 (Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-oil-co-of-new-york-v-barber-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack