From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrett v. John V. Schaefer, Jr., Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 11, 1916
112 N.E. 1064 (N.Y. 1916)

Opinion

Argued March 21, 1916

Decided April 11, 1916

Victor E. Whitlock for Hudson Trust Company, appellant.

Ralph H. Blum and Otto A. Samuels for Craig Brown, respondent and appellant.

Wilson Randolph Yard for Marshall Hufcut et al., respondents and appellants.

Henry R. Barrett and Floyd M. Grant for Edward P. Barrett, respondent.

Norbert Heinsheimer for Fraitel Marble Company, respondent.

Charles A. Hitchcock for Lieberman Sanford Co., respondent.

Frank M. Avery and Henry W. Eaton for Sargent Co., respondent.


Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, SEABURY and POUND, JJ.


Summaries of

Barrett v. John V. Schaefer, Jr., Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 11, 1916
112 N.E. 1064 (N.Y. 1916)
Case details for

Barrett v. John V. Schaefer, Jr., Company

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD P. BARRETT, Respondent, v . JOHN V. SCHAEFER, JR., COMPANY et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 11, 1916

Citations

112 N.E. 1064 (N.Y. 1916)
112 N.E. 1064

Citing Cases

Lincoln National Bank v. Peirce Co.

The question is, What would the words used convey to the ordinary mind? To me the meaning seems clear — that…

Edison El. Illuminating Co. v. Frick Co.

The legislature can change the section if it sees fit to do so, but until it does the court will have…