Merritt v. Goodrich

New York Court of Common Pleas

Merritt v. Goodrich

21 N.Y.S. 949, 2 Misc. 578, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 124

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedFebruary 6, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 N.Y.S. 949 (Merritt v. Goodrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merritt v. Goodrich, 21 N.Y.S. 949, 2 Misc. 578, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 124 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The questions involved on this appeal do not in any respect differ from those determined by us in Bank v. Andrews, 21 N. Y. Supp. 948, the decision wherein is herewith handed down. In that case our conclusions were that the defendant’s liability to a creditor of the American Loan & Trust Com[950]*950panv, imposed by its charter, for all debts of the corporation incurred while he continued to be a director, is enforceable in an action at law instituted by the creditor without joining other creditors or directors; and that the prior recovery of judgment against the company, and return of execution issued thereunder, were not essential to the maintenance of the action. The judgment of the general term of the court below should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The questions involved on this appeal do not in any respect differ from those determined by us in Bank v. Andrews, 21 N. Y. Supp. 948, the decision wherein is herewith handed down. In that case our conclusions were that the defendant’s liability to a creditor of the American Loan & Trust Com[950]*950panv, imposed by its charter, for all debts of the corporation incurred while he continued to be a director, is enforceable in an action at law instituted by the creditor without joining other creditors or directors; and that the prior recovery of judgment against the company, and return of execution issued thereunder, were not essential to the maintenance of the action. The judgment of the general term of the court below should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y.S. 949, 2 Misc. 578, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-goodrich-nyctcompl-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack