Godley v. . Crandall Godley Company

New York Court of Appeals

Godley v. . Crandall Godley Company

91 N.E. 1120, 197 N.Y. 579, 1910 N.Y. LEXIS 1145

DecidedJanuary 18, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.E. 1120 (Godley v. . Crandall Godley Company) 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

Godley v. . Crandall Godley Company, 91 N.E. 1120, 197 N.Y. 579, 1910 N.Y. LEXIS 1145 (N.Y. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified so as to limit receivership to property mentioned in paragraph XII of complaint, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Questions certified answered as follows: 1. The court has not power in this action to appoint a receiver of the defendant corporation, but lias power to appoint a receiver of such of its property as is alleged to have been transferred and secured to the use of another corporation, to preserve the same during the pendency of the action. 2. The same statement answers the second question. 3. The court had power to enjoin the defendant corporation from holding a meeting to reduce its capital stock. No opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ".

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

Order modified so as to limit receivership to property mentioned in paragraph XII of complaint, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Questions certified answered as follows: 1. The court has not power in this action to appoint a receiver of the defendant corporation, but lias power to appoint a receiver of such of its property as is alleged to have been transferred and secured to the use of another corporation, to preserve the same during the pendency of the action. 2. The same statement answers the second question. 3. The court had power to enjoin the defendant corporation from holding a meeting to reduce its capital stock. No opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ".

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.E. 1120, 197 N.Y. 579, 1910 N.Y. LEXIS 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godley-v-crandall-godley-company-ny-1910.