KELLY
v.
CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. et al.
BIGELOW et al.
v.
KELLY et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
February 11, 1936.
February 11, 1936.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Jacobson, Merrick, Nierman & Silbert and White & Hawxhurst, all of Chicago, Ill., and Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, of New York City (Lewis F. Jacobson, Harold F. White, and Arthur Altschul, all of Chicago, Ill., and Eugene W. Goodwillie, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Rosenthal, Hamill & Wormser, of Chicago, Ill., and Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Charles H. Hamill, of Chicago, Ill., Goldthwaite H. Dorr, and William B. Hubbell, both of New York City, and Edmund O. Belsheim, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for cross-complainant.
Chadbourne, Stanchfield & Levy, of New York City (George W. Whiteside, Louis G. Bissell, W. Hugh Peal, and Ralph D. Ray, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Commercial Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of New York City (Edward Cornell, Martin A. Schenck, Orrin G. Judd, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Irving Trust Co.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed, of New York City (John W. Davis, Porter R. Chandler, and Judson C. McLester, Jr., all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Guaranty Trust Co. of New York.
Larkin, Rathbone & Perry, of New York City (John M. Perry, Hersey Egginton, Donald C. Muhleman, and Hovey C. Clark, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
White & Case, of New York City (Vermont Hatch and Adrian L. Foley, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant, Bankers Trust Co.
Charles Neave, of New York City (Charles Neave, of New York City, Darius E. Peck, of Schenectady, N. Y., and John B. Cuningham, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant General Electric Co.
District Court, S. D. New York.
MACK, Circuit Judge.
I have delayed this decision in the matter of the statement of evidence as prepared by plaintiff and cross-plaintiff and the objections thereto by the defendants far too long, due, however, not only to a pressure of work, but more especially to a vacillation in my own views between the very strong conviction expressed at the conclusion of the argument and doubts due primarily to the language of Equity Rule 75 (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
