Boughton v. Otis
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an appeal from an order made at a special term, overruling a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint stated that on the 1st of J anuary, 1857, the Rochester Novelty Works was a corporation, created under the general manufacturing law, (Laws of 1848, chap. 40.) That Boody, Ritter and Huntington were trustees of said company from the 1st of January to some time in March, 1857; that from and after said some time in March, Boody, Otis and Palmer were, and…
Read the full summary
THIS was an appeal from an order made at a special term, overruling a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint stated that on the 1st of J anuary, 1857, the Rochester Novelty Works was a corporation, created under the general manufacturing law, (Laws of 1848, chap. 40.) That Boody, Ritter and Huntington were trustees of said company from the 1st of January to some time in March, 1857; that from and after said some time in March, Boody, Otis and Palmer were, and continued to he, trustees thereof until some time in September, 1857; and that the trustees of said Novelty Works did…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, J.
The plaintiff’s right of action depends upon the neglect of the trustees of the Rochester Novelty Works, within twenty days from the first of January, 1857, to file and publish the statement or report of its condition, required by the 12th section of the general manufacturing act, (Laws of 1848, p. 54.) The statute provides that “ if any of said companies shall fail to make and publish such statement, all the trustees of the company shall be jointly and severally liable for all the debts of the company then existing, and for all that shall be contracted before…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith & Crittenden v. SteeleNebraska Supreme Court · 1879
- Bank of California v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court · 1875