Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Parsons v. Hayes

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided May 15, 1883Published

The plaintiff, Levi H. Parsons, claiming to be a shareholder in the Varlmff Mining, Smelting and Milling Company, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New York, brought this action against Joseph Hayes and others, president, and directors of such corporation. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the corporation was under a disability to sue, by reason of being controlled by its directors, who were guilty of malfeasance in office.

Read the full summary

The plaintiff, Levi H. Parsons, claiming to be a shareholder in the Varlmff Mining, Smelting and Milling Company, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of New York, brought this action against Joseph Hayes and others, president, and directors of such corporation. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the corporation was under a disability to sue, by reason of being controlled by its directors, who were guilty of malfeasance in office. The other averments are stated in the opinion. The defendants demurred to the original complaint for insufficiency and upon trial of the issue of…

1Concurrence

Ingraham, J. [Cocurring.]

I concur with the chief judge on the ground stated by him, that as Cat-low was a party to the agreement under which the stock was issued, and received the benefit of such agreement, he would not be entitled to bring such an action as the present one, and that plaintiff’s title to the stock he owns and on which he brings his action, having come through Catlow, he can have no greater right as stockholder than his assignor had.*

Truax, J., dissented.

*441Note on Liability for Illegal or Exaggerated Stock.

Liability for issuing stoclc receiving inadequate payment.

Liability…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Kent v. . Quicksilver Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. United States Tr. Co. of New York v. . U.S. Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
  4. Arthur v. . GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  5. Lorillard v. . ClydeNew York Court of Appeals · 1881

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API