Richardson v. Abendroth
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought against the defendants as stock-. holders of the “Warner Foundry Machine Company,” (a manufacturing corporation formed pursuant to the act of 1848,) upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the company for his services as secretary, his claim against the defendants being founded upon the 18th section of said act, by which stockholders of such corporations are made individually liable for debts due to their “laborers, servants and…
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought against the defendants as stock-. holders of the “Warner Foundry Machine Company,” (a manufacturing corporation formed pursuant to the act of 1848,) upon a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the company for his services as secretary, his claim against the defendants being founded upon the 18th section of said act, by which stockholders of such corporations are made individually liable for debts due to their “laborers, servants and apprentices, for services performed for such corporation.” (Laws of 1848, ch. 40, p. 58.) Two defenses were set up by the answer:…
1Opinion of the CourtGeo. G. Barnard, J.
I think this judgment should be affirmed. None of the transfers have the effect of relieving the plaintiff from his liability upon the demand in suit. Consequently, the cases of Bailey et al. v. Bancker, (3 Hill, 188,) and Andrews v. Murray, (33 Barb. 354,) are direct authorities against a recovery by the plaintiff, in this action.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Andrews v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by6 opinions
- Williamson v. WadsworthNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Branson v. Oregonian Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1883
- May v. Genesee County Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Clark v. MyersNew York Supreme Court · 1877
- Deming v. PulestonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1871
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.