From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. E. Remington Sons

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 10, 1888
16 N.E. 680 (N.Y. 1888)

Summary

In People v. Remington, 109 N.Y. 631, by affirming the lower Court it was held that a superintendent at an annual salary, an attorney at law and salesmen on salaries and commission are not entitled to preference under the statute.

Summary of this case from Perkins v. Barr

Opinion

Argued February 28, 1888

Decided April 10, 1888

Edwin H. Risley for appellants.

Charles F. Tabor, attorney-general, for the People, respondent.

Francis Kernan and Thomas Richardson for the receivers, respondents.


Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur, except EARL, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. E. Remington Sons

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 10, 1888
16 N.E. 680 (N.Y. 1888)

In People v. Remington, 109 N.Y. 631, by affirming the lower Court it was held that a superintendent at an annual salary, an attorney at law and salesmen on salaries and commission are not entitled to preference under the statute.

Summary of this case from Perkins v. Barr
Case details for

People v. E. Remington Sons

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v . E. REMINGTON SONS, Respondents. In the Matter…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 10, 1888

Citations

16 N.E. 680 (N.Y. 1888)
16 N.E. 680
15 N.Y. St. Rptr. 993

Citing Cases

Palmer v. Van Santvoord

This restricted meaning was given to the word in the learned and able opinion of Judge FOLLETT in the case of…

Matter of Stryker

In its application to laborers and employees it conveys the idea of subordinate occupation which is not very…