Cornell v. Roach
New York Supreme Court
This was an action to recover of the defendants, trustees of a corporation known as the JEfcna Iron Works, organized under the general manufacturing act, passed February 17, 1848, and the amendments thereof. The plaintiffs were the owners and holders of five bonds of $1,000 each, made by the corporation, dated March 21,1878, payable one year from date.
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover of the defendants, trustees of a corporation known as the JEfcna Iron Works, organized under the general manufacturing act, passed February 17, 1848, and the amendments thereof. The plaintiffs were the owners and holders of five bonds of $1,000 each, made by the corporation, dated March 21,1878, payable one year from date. These bonds, as the complaint alleged, were made! and delivered by the corporation for a valuable consid-i eration, and came into the possession of the plaintiffs: before they were due. The complaint alleged that the corporation did not,,…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Vorst, J.
[After stating that the case was governed by the decision in Losee v. Bullard, 79 N. Y. 404, and that Nimmins v. Tappan, 2 Sweeny, 652, so far as it holds differently, must be deemed overruled.)*—Although it does not in words appear that the trustees, in office when the default in 1874 occurred, continued still to hold office, as such, during the subsequent years, and until 1877, yet there is enough stated to raise the implication that they were the same. That being so, their liability was fully fixed by the failure to file a report in 1874, when the debt existed.
I do not consider the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Losee v. . BullardNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Nimmons v. TappanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wallace & Sons v. WalshNew York Court of Appeals · 1890