Noble v. Euler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Noble v. Euler

47 N.Y.S. 302, 20 A.D. 548

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 N.Y.S. 302 (Noble v. Euler) 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

Noble v. Euler, 47 N.Y.S. 302, 20 A.D. 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to charge the defendant with liability, as a director of the F. J. Kaldenbérg Company, for a debt of that corporation on account of its failure to file the annual report required by section 30 of the stock corporation law (Laws 1892, c. 688). The corporation did file a report in the proper offices within the time prescribed by the statute; but the plaintiff contends that this document is to be deemed a nullity, becáuse it was verified by the oath of the president only, and not also by that of the treasurer or secretary. The office of treasurer and secretary of the F. J. Kaldenberg Company was vacant at the time when the report was made, in January, 1892, by reason of the resignation of the treasurer and secretary in the month of November, 1891. Although this resignation was not formally accepted until February, 1892, the referee correctly held that it became effective when tendered in the previous November. It also appeared that after the resignation, and at the time when the annual report was made and filed, the president of the corporation exercised and discharged the duties and functions of treasurer and secretary pursuant to the by-laws. When the report was made, therefore, the person who verified it was to all intents and purposes the president, secretary, and treasurer of the F. J. Kaldenberg Company, and the single verification by him, although it referred only to his office as president, was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the stock corporation law that such report should be “verified by the oath of the president or vice president and treasurer or secretary.” This is the result reached by the learned referee, whose reasoning is so convincing, and whose conclusions are so fully sustained by the authorities which he cites, that we are quite content to base our affirmance of the judgment upon his opinion on this branch of the case. We do not deem it necessary to decide the question, which he also discusses, as to the application of the statute of limitations.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to charge the defendant with liability, as a director of the F. J. Kaldenbérg Company, for a debt of that corporation on account of its failure to file the annual report required by section 30 of the stock corporation law (Laws 1892, c. 688). The corporation did file a report in the proper offices within the time prescribed by the statute; but the plaintiff contends that this document is to be deemed a nullity, becáuse it was verified by the oath of the president only, and not also by that of the treasurer or secretary. The office of treasurer and secretary of the F. J. Kaldenberg Company was vacant at the time when the report was made, in January, 1892, by reason of the resignation of the treasurer and secretary in the month of November, 1891. Although this resignation was not formally accepted until February, 1892, the referee correctly held that it became effective when tendered in the previous November. It also appeared that after the resignation, and at the time when the annual report was made and filed, the president of the corporation exercised and discharged the duties and functions of treasurer and secretary pursuant to the by-laws. When the report was made, therefore, the person who verified it was to all intents and purposes the president, secretary, and treasurer of the F. J. Kaldenberg Company, and the single verification by him, although it referred only to his office as president, was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the stock corporation law that such report should be “verified by the oath of the president or vice president and treasurer or secretary.” This is the result reached by the learned referee, whose reasoning is so convincing, and whose conclusions are so fully sustained by the authorities which he cites, that we are quite content to base our affirmance of the judgment upon his opinion on this branch of the case. We do not deem it necessary to decide the question, which he also discusses, as to the application of the statute of limitations.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.Y.S. 302, 20 A.D. 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-euler-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack