Van Cleave v. Demorest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Cleave v. Demorest

174 A.D. 928, 160 N.Y.S. 923

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D. 928 (Van Cleave v. Demorest) 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

Van Cleave v. Demorest, 174 A.D. 928, 160 N.Y.S. 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The fact that at the beginning of this suit appellant owned all excepting four shares of the capital stock of the Van Cleave Construction Company did not entitle him to maintain this suit in his individual name. The title to the land was in the corporation, which was party to the building and loan agreements mentioned in the complaint. Even had plaintiff wholly controlled the corporation by ownership of every share of its corporate stock, he would not thereby, as a [929]*929natural person, have legally become the corporation so as to bring an independent suit to enforce a corporate right. (Knickerbocker v. Conger, 110 App. Div. 125; Greaves v. Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154; Smith v. Hurd, 12 Metc. 371; Wells v. Dane, 101 Maine, 67; 10 Cyc. 996.) The judgment of dismissal of the complaint is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam:

The fact that at the beginning of this suit appellant owned all excepting four shares of the capital stock of the Van Cleave Construction Company did not entitle him to maintain this suit in his individual name. The title to the land was in the corporation, which was party to the building and loan agreements mentioned in the complaint. Even had plaintiff wholly controlled the corporation by ownership of every share of its corporate stock, he would not thereby, as a [929]*929natural person, have legally become the corporation so as to bring an independent suit to enforce a corporate right. (Knickerbocker v. Conger, 110 App. Div. 125; Greaves v. Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154; Smith v. Hurd, 12 Metc. 371; Wells v. Dane, 101 Maine, 67; 10 Cyc. 996.) The judgment of dismissal of the complaint is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D. 928, 160 N.Y.S. 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-cleave-v-demorest-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack