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.
New York Security and Trust Company, as Substituted Trustee of the Trusts Created by the Will of David Olyphant Vail, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Rosalie Schoenberg, Individually and as Trustee under the Will of Joseph Rosenfield, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Solomon Rosenfield et al., Appellants. North River Savings Bank, Respondent, 1904 — 177 N.Y. 556 · caselaw · US
Securities
New York Security and Trust Company, as Substituted Trustee of the Trusts Created by the Will of David Olyphant Vail, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Rosalie Schoenberg, Individually and as Trustee under the Will of Joseph Rosenfield, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Solomon Rosenfield et al., Appellants. North River Savings Bank, Respondent
177 N.Y. 556·New York Court of Appeals·1904·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
New York Security and Trust Company, as Substituted Trustee of the Trusts Created by the Will of David Olyphant Vail, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Rosalie Schoenberg, Individually and as Trustee under the Will of Joseph Rosenfield, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Solomon Rosenfield et al., Appellants. North River Savings Bank, Respondent.
JT. T. Security & Trust Qo. v. Schoenberg, 87 App. Div. 262, affirmed.
(Argued January 4, 1904;
decided January 19, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 20, 1903, which reversed an order of Special Term directing the respondent herein to complete its purchase of certain premises.
Frederic P. Goudert, Lorenzo Semple and Howa/rd Thayer Fingsbury for plaintiffs, appellants.
Harold Hathan for defendants, appellants.
Harold Swain and N. B. Sanborn for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Martin, Vanñ and Cullen, JJ. Absent: O’Brien and Werner, JJ.