Central Park Fire Insurance v. Callaghan

New York Supreme Court

Central Park Fire Insurance v. Callaghan

41 Barb. 448, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42

DecidedFebruary 1, 1864

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Barb. 448 (Central Park Fire Insurance v. Callaghan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Park Fire Insurance v. Callaghan, 41 Barb. 448, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Clerke, J.

I cannot conceive how the conduct of Michelbacher, before the company was organized, could in any manner implicate them after their organization, unless they, in their corporate capacity, in the usual way, adopted and ratified his conduct. The loan was made after the organization, and the whole sum for which the mortgage was given was paid to the defendant. I fully agree with the plaintiff’s counsel that any improper condition imposed by one of the projectors of the company, before its organization, could not invalidate the transaction.

if one of the exceptions of the defendant’s counsel are well taken.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Leonard, Clerke and Sutherland, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Clerke, J.

I cannot conceive how the conduct of Michelbacher, before the company was organized, could in any manner implicate them after their organization, unless they, in their corporate capacity, in the usual way, adopted and ratified his conduct. The loan was made after the organization, and the whole sum for which the mortgage was given was paid to the defendant. I fully agree with the plaintiff’s counsel that any improper condition imposed by one of the projectors of the company, before its organization, could not invalidate the transaction.

if one of the exceptions of the defendant’s counsel are well taken.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Leonard, Clerke and Sutherland, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Barb. 448, 1864 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-park-fire-insurance-v-callaghan-nysupct-1864.