Legal Opinion
Kincaid v. . Dwinelle
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 19, 1875PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] If the position of the appellant, that the New York Silk Manufacturing Company was ipso facto dissolved by the appointment of a receiver in April, 1866, and was not thereafter capable of suing and being sued as a corporation, is well taken, it would seem to follow that the condition precedent to an action against a stockholder, that there must be an unsatisfied judgment against the corporation, having become impossible of performance by the act and operation of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1832
- Verplanck v. Mercantile InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Shellington v. . HowlandNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Mickles v. Rochester City BankNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Bank Commissioners v. Bank of BuffaloNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Brock v. . PoorNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Petrogradsky Mejdunarodny Kommerchesky Bank v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Pringle v. . WoolworthNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert (Metropolitan) Elevated RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Wakefield v. . FargoNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.