Cases

On December 4, 1929, the Hiawatha Milling Company was indebted to the Merchants' Bank in the sum of fifty thousand dollars, for which a note was executed secured by collateral among which was eighty-eight thousand dollars of first mortgage bonds of a certain cotton oil company. On January 3, 1930, the milling company was indebted to the bank in an additional fifty thousand dollars, evidenced by a note and secured by the same collateral. In addition to the collateral mentioned, there were two

129 F.Supp.2d 578 (2000) BATH PETROLEUM STORAGE, INC., Plaintiff, v. MARKET HUB PARTNERS, L.P., Market Hub Partners, Inc., TPC Corporation, and Coalition for Resources and Environment in the Southern Tier, Inc., Defendants. No. 98-CV-6138 CJS. United States District Court, W.D. New York. February 25, 2000. *579

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................835 A. Factual Background.................................................835 B. Procedural Background...........

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hillaire (2026 NY Slip Op 00353) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hillaire 2026 NY Slip Op 00353 Decided on January 28, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Dillon, J.P. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judicia

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER COGAN, District Judge. Before me is an appeal from a final order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which incorporated four interlocutory orders. The United States (hereinafter the “IRS”) challenges these interlocutory orders and the final order on eight separate grounds, most of which have sub-arguments. The Liquidating Trustee (“

487 F.Supp. 653 (1980) Robert SEIFFER et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOPSY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. BEAR, STEARNS & CO., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. TOUCHE ROSS & CO. et al., Third-Party Defendants. G. WALKER & COMPANY, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. G. Kenneth BAUM et al., Third-Party Defendants. BEAR, STEARNS & CO., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Woodruff. For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, BURLING, WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, SCHETTINO, JJ. 13. For reversal — None.

The judicial rulings assigned for error are (a) the denial of defendant's motion to strike out the complaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, and (b) the striking out of defendant's answer, on plaintiffs' motion, and the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, severally. The motion to strike out the answer was grounded in the claim that it was sham and frivolous. While the order is not specific in this regard, the memorandum filed in the court below

RodMAN, J. Concurring. I concur in the decision in this case, but my reasons are so different from those of the Court as stated by my brother Reade, that! think I ought *319to give mine, lest his reasoning should be taken for a part of the decision, and thus apparently give the sanction of the Court to the affirmation of a case cited, which I think is erroneous

On January 28, 1921, J.A. Delfelder and Evelyn M. Delfelder, his wife, executed to John Hay a mortgage covering apparently all of the real property owned by the mortgagors in Fremont County, Wyoming, including the home of the mortgagors, to secure the sum of $225,000, which both mortgagors agreed to pay. Other security on live stock was given in addition. The mortgage above mentioned contained the clause that the mortgagors expressly waived and released any and all rights, benefits, privilege

Matthews, Justice., In this ease I am of opinion, after much careful consideration, that the equity of the case is with the complainants, and that they are entitled to a decree as prayed for, against all the defendants. The defense rests entirely upon the agreement and conveyance of May 14, 1869, between A. M. Ferguson and H. G-. Dent, Exhibit A to the answer. In reference to that I assume that the execution and delivery are suf

The Chancellor. When the rule to show cause in this case was granted, an unusual length of time was allowed, and 1 then mentioned to the counsel of the complainants, that I would expect them to bo ready, to-day, to proceed with the cause. The time has been sufficient to prepare, on the side of the complainants, unless the answer of the defendants put the matter in an entirely now and different light. The answer of the defendan