Case ID: ad_184/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lansing Liquidation Corporation, Respondent, v. Arthur P. Heinze and Others, Doing Business as Copartners under the Firm Name and Style of “ Otto Heinze and Company,” Appellants.
    First Department,
    July 11, 1918.
    See head note in Lansing Liquidation Corporation v. Heinze {ante, p. 129).
    Appeal by the defendants, Arthur P. Heinze and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 26th day of June, 1917, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of June, 1917, denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes’.
    
      Franklin Bien, for the appellant Arthur P. Heinze.
    
      Walter H. Dodd, for the appellant Otto C. Heinze.
    
      Henry H. Kaufman of counsel [Hays, Hershfield & Wolf, attorneys], for the.appellant Max H. Schultze.
    
      Anthony J. Ernest of counsel [Robert D. Ireland, attorney], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

For the reasons stated in Lansing Liquidation Corporation v. Heinze (184 App. Div. 129), handed down herewith, the judgment and order are affirmed, with costs.

Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Merrell, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.