From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Chadwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1896
9 App. Div. 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

October Term, 1896.

T.H. Ferris, for the appellant.

H.D. Pitcher, for the respondents.


This action was brought by a creditor of the Chadwick Leather Company, a business corporation organized under the laws of this State, against the directors thereof to recover his debt of them on the ground that they had failed to file annual reports in January, 1894, and in January, 1895, as required by the 30th section of the Stock Corporation Law (Laws of 1892, chap. 688).

Two of the defendants answered and admitted that the reports had not been filed, and alleged that the claim of the plaintiff had been fully paid.

When the case was moved for trial the complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not alleged therein that the plaintiff had recovered a judgment for the debt against the corporation and that an execution thereon had been returned unsatisfied. This was error. The recovery of a judgment and the return of an execution are not conditions precedent to the right of a creditor to recover from the directors of the corporation for failing to file reports. ( Miller v. White, 50 N.Y. 137-141; Rorke v. Thomas, 56 id. 559-565; Green v. Easton, 74 Hun, 329; State Bank of Rock Valley v. Andrews, 2 Misc. Rep. 394; Strauss v. Trotter, 6 id. 77.)

The case of The National Bank of Auburn v. Dillingham ( 147 N.Y. 603) arose under the 24th section of the Stock Corporation Law imposing a liability upon directors for creating an indebtedness not secured by mortgage in excess of the amount of its paid-up capital stock and is not in point.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Rose v. Chadwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1896
9 App. Div. 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

Rose v. Chadwick

Case Details

Full title:SIMON E. ROSE, Appellant, v . GEORGE W. CHADWICK and GEORGE W. LYNN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1896

Citations

9 App. Div. 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
41 N.Y.S. 190

Citing Cases

Milsom Fertilizer Co. v. Baker

At all events, we have recently held, in an action brought under this same section, that the recovery of a…

Manhattan Company v. Kaldenberg

An amendment to the complaint was allowed on the trial which showed that certain judicial action had been…