Legal Opinion

A. Rosen & Sons, Inc. v. Silverman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 10, 1932PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The counterclaim is clearly insufficient. The alleged dividends sought to be recovered have not been declared. The declaration of such rests wholly within the Sound discretion of the board of directors. (Liebman v. Auto Strop Co., 241 N. Y. 427.) Such an action, moreover, would not he at law (Godley v. Crandall & Godley Co., 212 N. Y. 128; Greeff v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 160 id. 19), and would he against the directors who are not here parties.

As a defense, however, the pleading may be sustained solely upon the ground that it pleads lack of consideration. It is asserted that the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Godley v. . Crandall Godley Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
  2. Liebman v. Auto Strop Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. McGann v. AdlerNew York Supreme Court · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API