Nash v. Hall Signal Co.

97 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 354, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 655, 90 Hun 354
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

Follett, J.:

In case A and «B, directors in a corporation, waste its funds during one year, and B and 0, directors, by some act not connected with the first devastavit, waste its funds in another year, the three cannot be joined in an equitable action brought by or in behalf of the corporation to compel them to account for and pay the damages sustained by these independent, wrongful acts. Wasting the property of a corporation by its directors is a tort. A is not liable for the acts of B and 0, and C is not liable for the acts of A and B, and these independent, tortious acts constitute distinct causes of action which cannot be united in one complaint. .

The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Lawrence, J., at Special Term.

Yan Brunt, P. J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Nash v. Hall Signal Co., 97 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 354, 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 655, 90 Hun 354 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

97 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 354 (Nash v. Hall Signal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bookbinder v. Chase National Bank of City of New York
153 Misc. 899 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
Moran v. Vreeland
81 Misc. 664 (New York Supreme Court, 1913)
People v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
124 A.D. 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Sayles v. White
18 A.D. 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Sayles v. Central National Bank
18 Misc. 155 (New York Supreme Court, 1896)