Case Name: Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. William Schatzkin et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Schatzkin, Bernstein & Co., Respondents, Impleaded with Others; Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Kirsch et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Morris & Smith, Respondents, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1926-05-11
Citations: 242 N.Y. 603
Docket Number: 
Parties: Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. William Schatzkin et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Schatzkin, Bernstein & Co., Respondents, Impleaded with Others. Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Kirsch et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Morris & Smith, Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 242
Pages: 603–603

Head Matter:
Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. William Schatzkin et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Schatzkin, Bernstein & Co., Respondents, Impleaded with Others. Earl B. Barnes, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Thomas H. Cowley et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Thos. H. Cowley & Co., Appellant, v. Lawrence J. Kirsch et al., Individually and as Copartners under the Firm Name of Morris & Smith, Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
(Submitted May 3, 1926;
decided May 11, 1926.)

Opinion:
Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 242 N. Y. 555.)