Deposit Contracting Corp. v. New York & Brooklyn Casket Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Deposit Contracting Corp. v. New York & Brooklyn Casket Co.

180 Misc. 530, 43 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2161

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 180 Misc. 530 (Deposit Contracting Corp. v. New York & Brooklyn Casket Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deposit Contracting Corp. v. New York & Brooklyn Casket Co., 180 Misc. 530, 43 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously modified upon the law, by reducing the amount of the recovery against the defendant to fifty dollars, together with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs of this appeal to defendant-appellant.

Within the meaning of section 10 of the Stock Corporation Law, the plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of a separate penalty in the one action for each and every refusal of the defendant to record the stock transfer. (See Griffin v. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 179 N. Y. 438; Cox v. Paul, 175 N. Y. 328.) No opinion.

MacCrate, Smith and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously modified upon the law, by reducing the amount of the recovery against the defendant to fifty dollars, together with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs of this appeal to defendant-appellant.

Within the meaning of section 10 of the Stock Corporation Law, the plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of a separate penalty in the one action for each and every refusal of the defendant to record the stock transfer. (See Griffin v. Interurban St. Ry. Co., 179 N. Y. 438; Cox v. Paul, 175 N. Y. 328.) No opinion.

MacCrate, Smith and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 Misc. 530, 43 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deposit-contracting-corp-v-new-york-brooklyn-casket-co-nyappterm-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack