Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARIE CADGENE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACQUES CADGENE ET AL.,DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court, with this added observation — that Judge Barbour, in support of his conclusions in the instant case, quoted from the opinion of the New York Supreme Court (Erie county) in Boehringer v. Schmid, 133 N.Y. Misc. Rep. 236; 232 N.Y. Supp. 360. It may be worthy to note that the judgment of the New York Supreme Court in that case was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York in a per curiam opinion reported in 254 N.Y. 355; 173 N.E. Rep. 220.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CADGENE v. CADGENE
(Apr 25, 1940)