McNeil v. Columbia Engineering Works, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McNeil v. Columbia Engineering Works, Inc.

136 N.Y.S. 73

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 136 N.Y.S. 73 (McNeil v. Columbia Engineering Works, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNeil v. Columbia Engineering Works, Inc., 136 N.Y.S. 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff recovered salary due him as a “hold-over” secretary and treasurer after April 20, 1911. On that day a board of directors of the company had been elected, and had appointed two persons as secretary and treasurer, respectively. Plaintiff claimed, however, that he was the only lawful secretary and treasurer, because, on May 26, 1911, an order of court was duly entered setting aside the election of these directors, and consequently invalidating the appointment of the other officers. Subsequently, however, the controversy was adjusted, and pursuant to a stipulation signed by all the parties, including plaintiff respondent, on July 29, 1911, an order was made in said proceeding setting aside the order of May 26, 1911. The result of this order, under the decisions, was to annul all the proceedings previously had, as though no action had been brought. Poster v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 143, 103 N. Y. Supp. 531, and cases there cited. So far, therefore, as the present record recites the [74]*74facts, the plaintiff was, after April'20/1911, no longer an officer of the defendant, because his successor had been duly appointed by a board of directors which in turn was itself' duly elected.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff recovered salary due him as a “hold-over” secretary and treasurer after April 20, 1911. On that day a board of directors of the company had been elected, and had appointed two persons as secretary and treasurer, respectively. Plaintiff claimed, however, that he was the only lawful secretary and treasurer, because, on May 26, 1911, an order of court was duly entered setting aside the election of these directors, and consequently invalidating the appointment of the other officers. Subsequently, however, the controversy was adjusted, and pursuant to a stipulation signed by all the parties, including plaintiff respondent, on July 29, 1911, an order was made in said proceeding setting aside the order of May 26, 1911. The result of this order, under the decisions, was to annul all the proceedings previously had, as though no action had been brought. Poster v. N. Y., etc., R. R. Co., 118 App. Div. 143, 103 N. Y. Supp. 531, and cases there cited. So far, therefore, as the present record recites the [74]*74facts, the plaintiff was, after April'20/1911, no longer an officer of the defendant, because his successor had been duly appointed by a board of directors which in turn was itself' duly elected.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.Y.S. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneil-v-columbia-engineering-works-inc-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack