Limpert v. Midcity Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Limpert v. Midcity Realty Co.

279 A.D. 984, 112 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D. 984 (Limpert v. Midcity Realty Co.) 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

Limpert v. Midcity Realty Co., 279 A.D. 984, 112 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

The dispute in this case upon the pleadings relates to ownership of the stock in question. Upon that issue we think the defense pled may stand. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents in part and votes to modify the order appealed from by striking out the first defense, which alleges that plaintiff is not entitled to have the stock transferred to his name upon the books of the corporation merely for the reason that he is pledgee and not the absolute owner. (See Kaufman v. Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co., of Cincinnati, 23 N. Y. S. 2d, 637, 645, affd. 263 App. Div. 703; Jones v. Seaman, 133 App. Div. 127, affd. 200 N. Y. 553; Horton V. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170; Moore v. Waterbury Tool Co., 124 Conn. 201, see Note, 116 A. L. R. 571.) Moreover, a pledgee of shares, when the pledgor is insolvent, has the standing of a shareholder for the purpose of protecting his interest. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Menin, 115 F. 2d 975; certiorari denied 313 U. S. 578; Gorman-Wright Co. v. Wright, 134 F. 363, 364.)

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

The dispute in this case upon the pleadings relates to ownership of the stock in question. Upon that issue we think the defense pled may stand. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Van Voorhis, J., dissents in part and votes to modify the order appealed from by striking out the first defense, which alleges that plaintiff is not entitled to have the stock transferred to his name upon the books of the corporation merely for the reason that he is pledgee and not the absolute owner. (See Kaufman v. Provident Sav. Bank & Trust Co., of Cincinnati, 23 N. Y. S. 2d, 637, 645, affd. 263 App. Div. 703; Jones v. Seaman, 133 App. Div. 127, affd. 200 N. Y. 553; Horton V. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170; Moore v. Waterbury Tool Co., 124 Conn. 201, see Note, 116 A. L. R. 571.) Moreover, a pledgee of shares, when the pledgor is insolvent, has the standing of a shareholder for the purpose of protecting his interest. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Menin, 115 F. 2d 975; certiorari denied 313 U. S. 578; Gorman-Wright Co. v. Wright, 134 F. 363, 364.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 984, 112 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/limpert-v-midcity-realty-co-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack