Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co.

35 N.Y.S. 80, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 259
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 26, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.Y.S. 80 (Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co., 35 N.Y.S. 80, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 259 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Opinion

PRATT, J.

There is no dispute that the secretary was the proper person to receive notices of withdrawal of funds. The power to receive notices implied the power to reject them, if irregular, and the duty to inform the applicant of the action taken. Any other rule would give a corporation a license to commit fraud. Had the secretary, when the notice was given, announced to plaintiff that the transfer of shares to him must be entered on the corporation books, that would have been promptly done. That obligation was for the benefit of the company. Once waived, it cannot now be insisted upon.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 N.Y.S. 80, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-new-york-building-loan-banking-co-nysupct-1895.