From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sturgis v. Roche

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 27, 1928
161 N.E. 192 (N.Y. 1928)

Opinion

Argued February 23, 1928

Decided March 27, 1928

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Henry B. Closson and A. Loeb Salkin for appellants.

Austin J. McMahon and William S. Jenney for respondents.


We think the evidence sustains a finding that the value of the coal mines at the date of the declaration of the stock dividend is fairly measured by the price paid therefor by the Glen Alden Coal Company, and is not to be augmented by a consideration of the price at which the shares of the latter company, when issued, were sold in the stock market.

We find no sufficient evidence, however, that the price so paid represents the value of the lands in March, 1911, and February, 1914, the dates of the creation of the trusts. We fix the value of the coal properties in March, 1911, at $40,625,000, and their value in February, 1914, at $44,187,500. These values must be substituted for the value as fixed by the Appellate Division in determining the capital investment. The proportion of the dividend to be allotted to the remaindermen in order that such investment may be preserved unimpaired will be correspondingly diminished.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and, as modified, affirmed without costs.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN, KELLOGG and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Sturgis v. Roche

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 27, 1928
161 N.E. 192 (N.Y. 1928)
Case details for

Sturgis v. Roche

Case Details

Full title:FRANK E. STURGIS et al., as Trustees under the Will of FRANK WORK…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 27, 1928

Citations

161 N.E. 192 (N.Y. 1928)
161 N.E. 192

Citing Cases

Matter of Payne

( Equitable Trust Co. v. Prentice, 250 N.Y. 1.)" See, also, Sturgis v. Roche ( 217 App. Div. 573, 583-584,…

Matter of Frothingham

" The same rule is stated in a slightly different manner in Sturgis v. Roche ( 217 A.D. 573, 583, 584),…