Seydel v. Corporation Liquidating Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Seydel v. Corporation Liquidating Co.

88 N.Y.S. 1004

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 1004 (Seydel v. Corporation Liquidating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seydel v. Corporation Liquidating Co., 88 N.Y.S. 1004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

These actions are brought, apparently under section 53 of the stock corporation law (Laws 1892, p. 1840, c. 688), to recover penalties for the alleged refusal to permit plaintiff, claiming to be a stockholder, to inspect the stockbook. The defendants each filed what is termed in the return a “traverse,” under which it was objected that the action could not be maintained because the summons had not been served by a marshal, as required by section 1895 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section, however, only applies to an action brought by a common informer. Quade v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (Super. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 875. And there was nothing before the justice to indicate that this was such an action. Furthermore, the return contains a demurrer interposed by defendants, which was equivalent to a general appearance, and waived any defect in the service, if any such there was. The judgment shows that the action was dismissed upon the ground raised by the so-called traverse; that is, upon the ground that the summons had not been properly served, and therefore that the court had not obtained jurisdiction. The court did not undertake to pass upon the issues raised by the demurrer, and, in reversing the judgment, we are not to be understood as passing upon them, but merely as overruling the objection raised and sustained as to the jurisdiction of the court, remitting all questions of law and fact to be determined upon the new trial.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

These actions are brought, apparently under section 53 of the stock corporation law (Laws 1892, p. 1840, c. 688), to recover penalties for the alleged refusal to permit plaintiff, claiming to be a stockholder, to inspect the stockbook. The defendants each filed what is termed in the return a “traverse,” under which it was objected that the action could not be maintained because the summons had not been served by a marshal, as required by section 1895 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section, however, only applies to an action brought by a common informer. Quade v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (Super. N. Y.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 875. And there was nothing before the justice to indicate that this was such an action. Furthermore, the return contains a demurrer interposed by defendants, which was equivalent to a general appearance, and waived any defect in the service, if any such there was. The judgment shows that the action was dismissed upon the ground raised by the so-called traverse; that is, upon the ground that the summons had not been properly served, and therefore that the court had not obtained jurisdiction. The court did not undertake to pass upon the issues raised by the demurrer, and, in reversing the judgment, we are not to be understood as passing upon them, but merely as overruling the objection raised and sustained as to the jurisdiction of the court, remitting all questions of law and fact to be determined upon the new trial.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seydel-v-corporation-liquidating-co-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack