Legal Opinion

Broderick v. Aaron

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValente, J.

A motion is made by defendant Graf under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it is legally insufficient. The action was instituted by the Superintendent of Banks against the stockholders of the Bank of the United States to recover the statutory liability under section 80 of the Banking Law. The two grounds of the motion are: First, that the Superintendent has failed to set forth the ultimate facts constituting each and every claim' against the bank for the deficiency in the assets to meet which the stockholders are sought to be held…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Van Schaick v. CroninAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  2. Campbell v. HeilandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Broderick v. RosnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Broderick v. AaronNew York Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API