Legal Opinion
Aneless Corporation v. Woodward
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 11, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
In plaintiff’s brief the sole issue is stated to be whether personally or through his agents, defendant had notice of the diversion of plaintiff’s funds.
Plaintiff is a New York corporation. Oscar J. Wile, who was its treasurer, was personally indebted in a-sum •upwards of $33,000 to defendant from whom he had mis appropriated that amount and who resides in England. There is a finding that Wile was empowered to execute corporate checks for corporate purposes. In order to discharge this personal obligation, the day before defendant left New York Wile as treasurer drew plaintiff’s corporate…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stephens v. . Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Wen Kroy Realty Co. v. Public National Bank & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Nassau Bank v. . Nat. Bank of NewburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Newhall v. . WyattNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- Matteawan Manufacturing Co. v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- First Union National Bank v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999