Rosenberg v. Mount Carmel Cemetery Association

New York Court of Appeals

Rosenberg v. Mount Carmel Cemetery Association

155 N.E. 902, 244 N.Y. 573, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 1110

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 1927·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to show that the individual defendants have no legal cause of action against the corporate defendant, then the corporation can protect its rights "and interests by asking for judgment in its favor in any actions at law that may be brought against it. If the individual defendants have a cause of action at law, they may not be enjoined from insisting upon their legal rights. No sufficient ground is pleaded for the interposition by a court of equity of an injunction against the prosecution of such actions at law even at the instance of the cemetery corporation. Certainly a certificate holder may not ask for such relief in its behalf.

The order of the Appellate Division and that of Special Term should be reversed and motion granted, with costs in all courts. Question certified answered in the negative.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., absent.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

If the facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to show that the individual defendants have no legal cause of action against the corporate defendant, then the corporation can protect its rights "and interests by asking for judgment in its favor in any actions at law that may be brought against it. If the individual defendants have a cause of action at law, they may not be enjoined from insisting upon their legal rights. No sufficient ground is pleaded for the interposition by a court of equity of an injunction against the prosecution of such actions at law even at the instance of the cemetery corporation. Certainly a certificate holder may not ask for such relief in its behalf.

The order of the Appellate Division and that of Special Term should be reversed and motion granted, with costs in all courts. Question certified answered in the negative.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., absent.

Ordered accordingly.

Rosenberg v. Mount Carmel Cemetery Association, 155 N.E. 902, 244 N.Y. 573, 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 1110 (N.Y. 1927).

Pincite

155 N.E. 902 (Rosenberg v. Mount Carmel Cemetery Association) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.