In Reed v. Hayt (51 N.Y. Super. Ct. 121; affd. on opinion below, 109 N.Y. 659) only three of the five directors were present at a meeting, one director not having been notified at all.
Summary of this case from Doehler v. Real Estate Board of N.Y. BldgArgued April 13, 1888
Decided June 5, 1888
Nathaniel C. Moak for appellant.
Samuel C. Reed for respondent.
for affirmance of judgment on opinion below. (19 J. S. 121.)
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In Reed v. Hayt (51 N.Y. Super. Ct. 121; affd. on opinion below, 109 N.Y. 659) only three of the five directors were present at a meeting, one director not having been notified at all.
Summary of this case from Doehler v. Real Estate Board of N.Y. BldgFull title:SAMUEL C. REED, Respondent, v . EZRA A. HAYT, Appellant
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Jun 5, 1888
Defendant then became liable to pay the price specified. Reed v. Hayt, 109 N.Y. 659, 17 N.E. 418; Obery v.…
McClave v. GibbIn 2 Tillinghast Shearman's Practice, 153, it is said: "A denial of a series of allegations must be in the…