Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William A. Hardt et al. v. Julius Levy et al. In the Matter of the Accounting of Henry Winthrop Gray, as Receiver of Levy Brothers & Co., Respondent; Kings County Trust Company, as Receiver, et al., Appellants, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
William A. Hardt et al. v. Julius Levy et al. In the Matter of the Accounting of Henry Winthrop Gray, as Receiver of Levy Brothers & Co., Respondent; Kings County Trust Company, as Receiver, et al., Appellants
155 N.Y. 660·New York Court of Appeals·1898·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William A. Hardt et al. v. Julius Levy et al. In the Matter of the Accounting of Henry Winthrop Gray, as Receiver of Levy Brothers & Co., Respondent; Kings County Trust Company, as Receiver, et al., Appellants.
Hardt v. Levy, 20 App Div. 400, affirmed.
(Argued February 28, 1898;
decided March 15, 1898.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 24, 1897, reversing an order of Special Term and settling the accounts of a receiver.
Ira Leo Bamberger and Benjamin TusJca for appellants.
George Zdbriskie for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur, except Gray, J., absent.