Pink v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company

New York Court of Appeals

Pink v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company

10 N.E.2d 575, 274 N.Y. 610, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 994

DecidedJune 8, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.E.2d 575 (Pink v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company) 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

Pink v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, 10 N.E.2d 575, 274 N.Y. 610, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 994 (N.Y. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument denied. Upon this appeal we decided only that the matters alleged in the answer did not constitute debts or credits which might be offset against the cause of action alleged in the complaint based, as we said, upon “ the fraud and imposition practiced and upon the unjust enrichment of defendant under cover of confidential and fiduciary relations through the common directorate.” We expressed no opinion upon the merits of the issues which must await trial. Nothing we have said may properly be construed as an *611 expression of opinion, or assumption, that the cause of action alleged may be established merely by proof that the result, even though, perhaps, beneficial to the plaintiff, has been accomplished by acts which are ultra vires, but not otherwise illegal and fraudulent. (See 274 N. Y. 167.)

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

Motion for reargument denied. Upon this appeal we decided only that the matters alleged in the answer did not constitute debts or credits which might be offset against the cause of action alleged in the complaint based, as we said, upon “ the fraud and imposition practiced and upon the unjust enrichment of defendant under cover of confidential and fiduciary relations through the common directorate.” We expressed no opinion upon the merits of the issues which must await trial. Nothing we have said may properly be construed as an *611 expression of opinion, or assumption, that the cause of action alleged may be established merely by proof that the result, even though, perhaps, beneficial to the plaintiff, has been accomplished by acts which are ultra vires, but not otherwise illegal and fraudulent. (See 274 N. Y. 167.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.E.2d 575, 274 N.Y. 610, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pink-v-title-guarantee-and-trust-company-ny-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack