City Investing Co. v. Gerken
122 Misc. 871
Opinion
Upon the reopening of this case it appears that the declaration of the improper dividend was not formally ratified at a meeting at which the defendant Gerken was present. Nevertheless, in view of his preponderant stock interest, the receipt by him as a stockholder of a substantial portion of the improper dividend, the fact that it was paid out by him and other acts of control, he must be held liable under the principle of Godley v. Crandall & Godley Co., 212 N. Y. 121, 138.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
City Investing Co. v. Gerken, 122 Misc. 871 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1924).
122 Misc. 871 (City Investing Co. v. Gerken) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Union Discount Co. v. MacRobert
134 Misc. 107 (New York Supreme Court, 1929)