Ehle v. . the Chittenango Bank

New York Court of Appeals

Ehle v. . the Chittenango Bank

24 N.Y. 548

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 24 N.Y. 548 (Ehle v. . the Chittenango Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ehle v. . the Chittenango Bank, 24 N.Y. 548 (N.Y. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Weight, J.

I am for reversal, for the foEowing reasons:

1st. The dividend declared and demanded was, not of cur rent or úncurrent bills or' property possessed by the bank, (which might be specifically divided amongst the stockholders), but was a portion of the surplus or net earnings of the association. It was a dividend of $6,000 of cash profits realized, and set apart as due to the stockholders. So much of the cash earnings of the association were withdrawn from its business and divided pro rata amongst the stockholders as the earnings of their capital invested in the stock. The bank became the debtor of the stockholders when the dividend, by the terms of the resolution, was payable. I think that the stockholder was entitled to demand his dividend in money; and that an offer to pay in uncurrent biEs, of banks that might happen to be solvent when such dividend was payable, would not exonerate the association. If the terms “New York State currency,” employed in the resolution, mean anything other than money, or mean, as the cashier seems to have understood, bank bEIs, that are 'quoted at a quarter per cent below par in the city of New York, there was no authority in the board of directors .to declare that a dividend of the cash profits of the bank should be paid in depreciated bank notes.

2d. I think the question put to the cashier: “ What do you understand by New York State currency ?” was incompetent and inadmissible. His understanding of the phrase was imma *550 ferial, and the evidence "did not tend, in any degree, to show in what sense the directors understood, or for what ptirpose they Used it in the resolution. The term “Hew York State currency ” must be held to mean what the ordinary signification of those words imply, unless, by some .general known usage, some 'other 'technical meaning can be attached to it. The testimony of the -cashier as.to whát he understood the phrase to mean, did not tend to prove any such known usage; or that the directors, when they used the term in their resolution making the dividend, understood it as he did.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Judgment reversed, and new-trial ordered.

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

Weight, J.

I am for reversal, for the foEowing reasons:

1st. The dividend declared and demanded was, not of cur rent or úncurrent bills or' property possessed by the bank, (which might be specifically divided amongst the stockholders), but was a portion of the surplus or net earnings of the association. It was a dividend of $6,000 of cash profits realized, and set apart as due to the stockholders. So much of the cash earnings of the association were withdrawn from its business and divided pro rata amongst the stockholders as the earnings of their capital invested in the stock. The bank became the debtor of the stockholders when the dividend, by the terms of the resolution, was payable. I think that the stockholder was entitled to demand his dividend in money; and that an offer to pay in uncurrent biEs, of banks that might happen to be solvent when such dividend was payable, would not exonerate the association. If the terms “New York State currency,” employed in the resolution, mean anything other than money, or mean, as the cashier seems to have understood, bank bEIs, that are 'quoted at a quarter per cent below par in the city of New York, there was no authority in the board of directors .to declare that a dividend of the cash profits of the bank should be paid in depreciated bank notes.

2d. I think the question put to the cashier: “ What do you understand by New York State currency ?” was incompetent and inadmissible. His understanding of the phrase was imma *550 ferial, and the evidence "did not tend, in any degree, to show in what sense the directors understood, or for what ptirpose they Used it in the resolution. The term “Hew York State currency ” must be held to mean what the ordinary signification of those words imply, unless, by some .general known usage, some 'other 'technical meaning can be attached to it. The testimony of the -cashier as.to whát he understood the phrase to mean, did not tend to prove any such known usage; or that the directors, when they used the term in their resolution making the dividend, understood it as he did.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Judgment reversed, and new-trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 N.Y. 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehle-v-the-chittenango-bank-ny-1862.

Opinion

I am for reversal, for the foEowing reasons:

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack