Legal Opinion

Broderick v. Adamson

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDore, J.

The action is by the Superintendent of Banks for an assessment against stockholders of the Bank of United States in liquidation. Plaintiff moves to strike out the first and third affirmative defenses as insufficient in law. The first defense alleges in effect that the assessment is premature and that until there has been a liquidation of the assets it cannot be determined whether the stockholders’ liability exists, that the assets may be sufficient to pay all claims, and that no deficiency may exist. By section 7 of article 8 of the Constitution and sections 80 and 120 of the Banking Law…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Van Tuyl v. RobinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
  2. Van Tuyl v. . SchwabNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Van Tuyl v. SchwabAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  4. Persons v. GardnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  5. Van Tuyl v. . RobinNew York Court of Appeals · 1914

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Broderick v. AdamsonNew York Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Skinner v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Broderick v. WeinsierNew York Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API