Lockley v. Robie

New York Court of Appeals

Lockley v. Robie

93 N.E.2d 895, 301 N.Y. 371

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 11, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 93 N.E.2d 895 (Lockley v. Robie) 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

Lockley v. Robie, 93 N.E.2d 895, 301 N.Y. 371 (N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Froessel, J.

In this action, which involves primarily the two principal stockholders of the corporate defendant, and wherein plaintiff seeks restoration of his former status and rights in said corporation, based largely upon the oral agreement of August 1, 1941, we are of the opinion that the weight of the evidence supports the findings and determination of Special Term, excepting with respect to the failure to declare dividends (Special Term’s findings 51 and 53; subdivision 6 of first decretal paragraph of its judgment). The Appellate Division properly reversed said findings and ruled that upon this record the refusal of the directors to declare dividends cannot be said to have been arbitrary or in had faith (City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Hewitt Realty Co., 257 N. Y. 62). Special Term also erred (subdivision 8 of first decretal paragraph of its judgment) in directing defendant George F. Robie, in this action, to repay to the corporate defendant “ the sum of fourteen hundred dollars ($1400) heretofore paid to him out of corporate funds as a payment on the purchase price of an automobile personally purchased by George F. Robie ”, as this is not a stockholder’s derivative action.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division and that of Special Term should be modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Lewis, Conway and Dye, JJ., concur with Froessel, J.; Loughran, Ch. J., Desmond and Fuld, JJ., dissent on the ground that the findings of the Appellate Division are in accord with the weight of the evidence.

Judgment accordingly. [See 301 N. Y. 731.]

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

Froessel, J.

In this action, which involves primarily the two principal stockholders of the corporate defendant, and wherein plaintiff seeks restoration of his former status and rights in said corporation, based largely upon the oral agreement of August 1, 1941, we are of the opinion that the weight of the evidence supports the findings and determination of Special Term, excepting with respect to the failure to declare dividends (Special Term’s findings 51 and 53; subdivision 6 of first decretal paragraph of its judgment). The Appellate Division properly reversed said findings and ruled that upon this record the refusal of the directors to declare dividends cannot be said to have been arbitrary or in had faith (City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Hewitt Realty Co., 257 N. Y. 62). Special Term also erred (subdivision 8 of first decretal paragraph of its judgment) in directing defendant George F. Robie, in this action, to repay to the corporate defendant “ the sum of fourteen hundred dollars ($1400) heretofore paid to him out of corporate funds as a payment on the purchase price of an automobile personally purchased by George F. Robie ”, as this is not a stockholder’s derivative action.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division and that of Special Term should be modified in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Lewis, Conway and Dye, JJ., concur with Froessel, J.; Loughran, Ch. J., Desmond and Fuld, JJ., dissent on the ground that the findings of the Appellate Division are in accord with the weight of the evidence.

Judgment accordingly. [See 301 N. Y. 731.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.E.2d 895, 301 N.Y. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockley-v-robie-ny-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack