Henderson v. Railroad Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

272 A.D.2d 893
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 893 (Henderson v. Railroad Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henderson v. Railroad Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 272 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Opinion

Van Voorhis, J.

(concurring). The defendant savings and loan association was authorized by section 400 (formerly § 409-a) of the Banking Law to retire plaintiff on a life pension of $150 per month, just as defendant's president informed plaintiff that the defendant had done. Defendant’s president said nothing to plaintiff about her pension being continued only at the pleasure of defendant’s board of directors. Defendant as a corporation is chargeable with the knowledge of its president that. plaintiff was informed that her pension was for life (Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Pam, 232 N. Y. 441, 453). With notice that plaintiff had been thus informed, defendant paid to plaintiff $150 per month during ten years after her retirement. By so doing, the corporation clearly ratified the action of defendant’s president in retiring her on a life pension. Ratification takes the place of an original resolution (Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 200 App, Div. 460, 464, affd. 235 N. Y. 37). Section 400 (formerly § 409-a) of the Banking Law contemplates a pension for life, and is actually in conflict with the secret proviso in the resolution that plaintiff’s allowance was to be limited by the pleasure of the board. In any event, however, this limitation in the formal resolution was superseded by ratification by defendant’s carrying out over a ten-year period the action of its president in dealing with plaintiff without mention of the proviso.

[894]*894Cohn, Callahan and Peek, JJ., concur in decision; Van Voorhis, J., concurs with opinion.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. [See post, p. 997.]

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

Related

People v. Parker
271 A.D.2d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-railroad-federal-savings-loan-assn-nyappdiv-1947.