Legal Opinion
In re Paul De Laney Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 25, 1928No. 289PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This controversy involves the application of section 69 of the Stock Corporation Law of New York (Consol. Laws, e. 59) which forbids the issuing of stock or bonds “except for money, labor done or property actually received” — a statute which has previously been before us in Re Waterloo Organ Co., 134 F. 345; Id., 154 F. 657; In re Progressive Wall Paper Corp., 229 F. 489, L. R. A. 1916E, 563; Davis v. Seneca Falls Mfg. Co., 17 F.(2d) 546. To determine its application to the bonds held by the Renneker Company requires a recital of the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of HaileyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899
- Hamilton Trust Co. v. . ClemesNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Davis v. Seneca Falls Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- In re Progressive Wall Paper Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1916
- Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1923
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Willcox v. GoessDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1936
- In re Quigley Motor Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
- In re Paul De Laney Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1929