Allen-Wheeler Co. v. Carstensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allen-Wheeler Co. v. Carstensen

235 A.D. 729

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 729 (Allen-Wheeler Co. v. Carstensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen-Wheeler Co. v. Carstensen, 235 A.D. 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The first defense, assuming the truth of the allegations therein, shows that the appellant, in good faith, attempted to comply with the statute governing its incorporation, and it, therefore, became a de facto corporation. As to the second defense, the plaintiff, by filing the supplemental notice of lien, stating that the appeUant was an owner of the property in question, with knowledge of the facts relating to the appeUant’s attempted incorporation, may be held to have recognized the appeUant as a de facto corporation and the owner of the property in question, and waived any defect in its incorporation. Lazansky, P. J., Young, CarsweU, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The first defense, assuming the truth of the allegations therein, shows that the appellant, in good faith, attempted to comply with the statute governing its incorporation, and it, therefore, became a de facto corporation. As to the second defense, the plaintiff, by filing the supplemental notice of lien, stating that the appeUant was an owner of the property in question, with knowledge of the facts relating to the appeUant’s attempted incorporation, may be held to have recognized the appeUant as a de facto corporation and the owner of the property in question, and waived any defect in its incorporation. Lazansky, P. J., Young, CarsweU, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-wheeler-co-v-carstensen-nyappdiv-1932.