Opinion · Nylaw New York

POSWICK v. CUTTEN, 283 N.Y. 660 (1940)

JEAN G. POSWICK, Respondent, v. RULOFF E. CUTTEN et al., Individually andas Copartners under the Name of E.F. HUTTON Co., et al., Appellants,Impleaded with Others., 283 N.Y. 660 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1940)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1940-06-11
Topic: general

POSWICK v. CUTTEN, 283 N.Y. 660 (1940) JEAN G. POSWICK, Respondent, v. RULOFF E. CUTTEN et al., Individually andas Copartners under the Name of E.F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed POSWICK v. CUTTEN, 283 N.Y. 660 (1940). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

POSWICKv.CUTTEN,283 N.Y. 660(1940)

JEAN G. POSWICK, Respondent,v.RULOFF E. CUTTEN et al., Individually and

as Copartners under the Name of E.F. HUTTON COMPANY, et al., Appellants,

Impleaded with Others.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued April 26, 1940

Decided June 11, 1940

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.Page 661

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Arthur M. Boalfor Ruloff E. Cutten et al., appellants.Ralph B. NeuburgerandJohn J. Corwinfor respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, SEARS, LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ.Page 663