Bird v. Hayden
The Superior Court of New York City
Exceptions taken at the trial, and directed to be heard in the first instance at the general term. The defendant, Henry H. Hayden, was a director of “ The Daggett Manufacturing Company,” a corporation formed under an act of the legislature of the State of Massachusetts, entitled “'An act relating to joint stock companies.”
Read the full summary
Exceptions taken at the trial, and directed to be heard in the first instance at the general term. The defendant, Henry H. Hayden, was a director of “ The Daggett Manufacturing Company,” a corporation formed under an act of the legislature of the State of Massachusetts, entitled “'An act relating to joint stock companies.” A provision of the act requires that the officers of the corporation shall annually, in the month of January, make and file a certificate, verified by the oaths of the president and a majority-of the directors, containing a statement of stock paid in, amount invested in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—Monell, J.
Actions to recover penalties, or forfeitures, created by statutes of other States, being local, are not cognizable by the courts of this State. This is understood to be well settled (Scovill v. Canfield, 14 Johns., 338; United States v. Lathrop, II Id., 4; Story on Confl. of Laws, §§ 620, 621), and was conceded by counsel on the argument,
It is claimed, however, that this is not such an action; but that it is an action to recover upon a contract made by the company, which, by force of the statute, the defendant has become individually liable to pay.
There is nothing in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Garrison v. . HoweNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Scoville v. CanfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Ex parte Van RiperNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Merchants' Bank of New Haven v. BlissThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moies v. Sprague, AdministratorSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1870