KEATING v. PUBLIC NAT BANK OF NEW YORK, 284 U.S. 587 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court
KEATING v. PUBLIC NAT BANK OF NEW YORK, 284 U.S. 587 (1931)
284 U.S. 587
Andrew B. KEATING, as Receiver of Taxes of the City of New York, and William Reid, Jr., as City Collector, appellants,
v.
The PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK.
No. 71.
Supreme Court of the United States
December 7, 1931
Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly and William Herbert King, both of New York City, for appellants.
Messrs. Martin Saxe and Henry L. Moses, both of New York City, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed Bodkin v. Edward, 255 U.S. 221, 223, 41 S. Ct. 268; Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S. Ct. 427; First National Bank of Hartford, Wisconsin, v. City of Hartford, 273 U.S. 548, 47 S. Ct. 462, 59 A. L. R. 1; Minnesota v. First National Bank of St. Paul, 273 U.S. 561, 47 S. Ct. 468; Georgetown National Bank v. McFarland, 273 U.S. 658, 47 S. Ct. 467.[ Keating v. Public Nat Bank of New York 284 U.S. 587 (1931) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
KEATING v. PUBLIC NAT BANK OF NEW YORK, 284 U.S. 587 (1931)
Andrew B. KEATING, as Receiver of Taxes of the City of New York, and William Reid, Jr., as City Collector, appellants,
v.
The PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK.
No. 71.
Supreme Court of the United States
December 7, 1931
Messrs. Arthur J. W. Hilly and William Herbert King, both of New York City, for appellants.
Messrs. Martin Saxe and Henry L. Moses, both of New York City, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Decree affirmed Bodkin v. Edward, 255 U.S. 221, 223, 41 S. Ct. 268; Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S. Ct. 427; First National Bank of Hartford, Wisconsin, v. City of Hartford, 273 U.S. 548, 47 S. Ct. 462, 59 A. L. R. 1; Minnesota v. First National Bank of St. Paul, 273 U.S. 561, 47 S. Ct. 468; Georgetown National Bank v. McFarland, 273 U.S. 658, 47 S. Ct. 467.[ Keating v. Public Nat Bank of New York 284 U.S. 587 (1931) ]
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.