STATE BANK & TRUST CO.

v.

LEE, TRUSTEE

Citator

Cited By

• Rockmore v. Lehman, 128 F.2d 564 (2d Cir. 1942)
  …rty. Under Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U.S. 353, 45 S.Ct. 566, 69 L.Ed. 991, such assignments are valid unless the assignor exercises “dominion” over the accounts. See Lee v. State Bank & Trust Co., 2 Cir., 54 F. 2d 518, 85 A.L.R. 216, certiorari denied 285 U.S. 547, 52 S.Ct. 395, 76 L.Ed. 938. Certainly there is no evidence before us in [*568] dicating reservation of “dominion” by the assignor. It also seems to me that the transactions before us better fit the analogy of expectancies, upheld by us in In re Ba…
• Bloch v. Mill Factors Corp., 134 F.2d 562 (2d Cir. 1943)
  …he trustee relies upon the doctrine of Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U.S. 353, 45 S.Ct. 566, 69 L.Ed. 991, and its application in cases such as Lee v. State Bank & Trust Co., 2 Cir., 38 F. 2d 45; Id., 2 Cir., 54 F. 2d 518, 85 A.L.R. 216, certiorari denied 285 U.S. 547, 52 S.Ct. 395, 76 L.Ed. 938. The factor contends that the rule of Benedict v. Ratner has been abrogated by section 45 of the New York Personal Property Law, Consol.Laws N.Y.C. 41, or if not, that the principle is not applicable to the facts at bar.…