Veeder v. . Mudgett
New York Court of Appeals
These are appeals by fifteen of the defendants, who were stockholders of the Rochester Iron Manufacturing Company, against whom separate judgments were entered upon an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, made December 16, 1882, which affirmed judgments against said defendants entered upon the report of a referee, and also affirmed an interlocutory judgment.
Read the full summary
These are appeals by fifteen of the defendants, who were stockholders of the Rochester Iron Manufacturing Company, against whom separate judgments were entered upon an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, made December 16, 1882, which affirmed judgments against said defendants entered upon the report of a referee, and also affirmed an interlocutory judgment. This action was brought by plaintiff as a creditor of said company, which was a corporation, organized under the Gen-, eral Manufacturing Act, on lfis own behalf, and that of other creditors,…
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
If the certificate filed in 1873, asserting that the whole capital stock of $300,000 had been paid in, is conclusive in favor of the stockholders as against the creditors, the foundation upon which this recovery rests is taken away. One case furnishes a seeming authority for the doctrine, until its occasion and limitations are understood. (Stedman v. Eveleth, 6 Metc. 114.) That decision originated in an existing stockholder’s liability so wide and destructive as to induce a conclusion that the certificate was required largely for their protection. The failure to pay in the whole capital stock…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Scovill v. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Chubb v. UptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Eaton v. . AspinwallNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Aspinwall v. . SacchiNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Bonnell v. . GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Handley v. StutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
- Cunningham v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Thompson v. First State Bank of AmarilloTexas Supreme Court · 1919
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.