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.
In the Matter of the Application of Sarah Ziegler, Respondent. David B. Sickels, as Receiver of the Harlem River Bank, Appellant, 1905 — 183 N.Y. 541 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of Sarah Ziegler, Respondent. David B. Sickels, as Receiver of the Harlem River Bank, Appellant
183 N.Y. 541·New York Court of Appeals·1905·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
In the Matter of the Application of Sarah Ziegler, Respondent. David B. Sickels, as Receiver of the Harlem River Bank, Appellant.
(Argued November 21, 1905;
decided December 5, 1905.)
Matter of Ziegler, 107 App. Div. 617, appeal dismissed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 1,1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the appellant,receiver to pay to the petitioner a dividend upon her claim against the Harlem ¡River Bank.
George M. Mackellar for appellant.
Sydney W. Stern and Arthur J. Stern for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, without costs ; no opinion.
Concur: Gray, O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Ch. J.