In Bauer v. Betz (4 N.Y. St. Repr. 92), also cited, the controversy related to specific personal property, viz., government bonds of the United States, and an order refusing to require their delivery to the receiver was affirmed.
Summary of this case from Broderick v. ArchibaldArgued June 16, 1885
Decided June 26, 1885
Frederick M. Evarts for appellant.
Samuel Untermeyer for respondent.
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.
In Bauer v. Betz (4 N.Y. St. Repr. 92), also cited, the controversy related to specific personal property, viz., government bonds of the United States, and an order refusing to require their delivery to the receiver was affirmed.
Summary of this case from Broderick v. ArchibaldIn Bauer v. Betz, 4 N.Y. St. Repr. 92, the address was ordered to enable the service of an injunction order upon the defendant, the court holding that the disclosure was in aid of the administration of justice.
Summary of this case from O'Connor v. O'ConnorFull title:WILLIAM C. BAUER v . JOHN F. BETZ, Respondent, HENRY DAILY, JR., Appellant
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Jun 26, 1885
The agreement in that case was held to be void upon its face, and moreover the operation of the decision…
O'Connor v. O'ConnorThe disclosing of the address is refused upon the sole ground that the information is privileged. I do not…