Whitney National Bank v. Picard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitney National Bank v. Picard

236 A.D. 698

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

DecidedJune 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 698 (Whitney National Bank v. Picard) 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

Whitney National Bank v. Picard, 236 A.D. 698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, as resettled, vacating the order and warrant of attachment and vacating and setting aside the service of said order and warrant of attachment and the service of the summons and complaint herein upon the respondent, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to respondent to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. In our opinion, the record does not show that the respondent came into this State for the purpose of attending and being examined or to testify in the accounting proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court of Bangs county. The appeal from the order denying the appellant’s motion for resettlement is dismissed as being unnecessary. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order, as resettled, vacating the order and warrant of attachment and vacating and setting aside the service of said order and warrant of attachment and the service of the summons and complaint herein upon the respondent, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to respondent to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. In our opinion, the record does not show that the respondent came into this State for the purpose of attending and being examined or to testify in the accounting proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court of Bangs county. The appeal from the order denying the appellant’s motion for resettlement is dismissed as being unnecessary. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-national-bank-v-picard-nyappdiv-1931.