Deming v. Puleston
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from a judgment. The plaintiff alleged, that he was employed to superintend the operations of the “Hocking Valley Oil and Coal Company,” a corporation organized under the general manufacturing act of this State, at a salary of one hundred and twenty-five dollars for the first month, and one hundred and fifty dollars per month afterwards.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment. The plaintiff alleged, that he was employed to superintend the operations of the “Hocking Valley Oil and Coal Company,” a corporation organized under the general manufacturing act of this State, at a salary of one hundred and twenty-five dollars for the first month, and one hundred and fifty dollars per month afterwards. That he continued in their employment for one year and eight days, when there was found to be due to him the sum of one thousand and four dollars and twenty-eight cents, for which the company gave to the plaintiff their promissory notes. The notes not…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Monell, J.
It appears to be quite well settled, that one stockholder in a corporation, created under the general incorporating act of this State, cannot, at law, enforce the liability of another stockholder of the same corporation, under any of the provisions of the act (Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188 ; Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 162 ; Beers v. Waterbury, 8 Bosw. 396). It seems, that such liability can be reached only in equity, by an action against all the stockholders for contribution.
The first objection taken upon the motion to dismiss tne complaint is, therefore, fatal…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People on rel. Morton v. TiemanNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Richardson v. AbendrothNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Beers v. WaterburyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861