Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Jones v. Van Heusen Charles Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 26, 1930Published

1ConcurrenceDavis, J.

I concur for affirmance. A cause of action was stated against the defendant corporation at least to the extent that any dividend which should be declared must be payable out of the surplus it had accumulated. Other necessary parties who were not joined always could have been brought in by amendment in a suit in equity and may now be brought in under section 193 of the Civil Practice Act. (Tooker v. Oakley, 10 Paige, 288; Vanderwerker v. Vanderwerker, 7 Barb. 221, 225.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the court directs that, within thirty days after service of a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tooker v. OakleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
  2. Vanderwerker v. VanderwerkerNew York Supreme Court · 1849

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

Powered by the Exa API