Wagner v. Armsby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wagner v. Armsby

264 A.D. 379, 35 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157

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

DecidedJune 19, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 379 (Wagner v. Armsby) 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

Wagner v. Armsby, 264 A.D. 379, 35 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The gist of the complaint is that the directors-used funds of the corporation for their own benefit in settling various stockholders’ derivative actions brought against them personally for their own misconduct. Such a cause of action is basically an action for money had and received and not an action for damage to property. The relevant Statute of Limitations is, therefore, the six-year statute. (Mencher v. Richards, 283 N. Y. 176; Goldstein v. Tri-Continental Corp., 282 id. 21; Potter v. Walker, 276 id. 15; Dunlop’s Sons, Inc., v. Spurr, 285 id. 333.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with leave to the defendants-respondents to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon and Dore, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

Per Curiam.

The gist of the complaint is that the directors-used funds of the corporation for their own benefit in settling various stockholders’ derivative actions brought against them personally for their own misconduct. Such a cause of action is basically an action for money had and received and not an action for damage to property. The relevant Statute of Limitations is, therefore, the six-year statute. (Mencher v. Richards, 283 N. Y. 176; Goldstein v. Tri-Continental Corp., 282 id. 21; Potter v. Walker, 276 id. 15; Dunlop’s Sons, Inc., v. Spurr, 285 id. 333.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with leave to the defendants-respondents to answer within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon and Dore, JJ.; Dore, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 379, 35 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-armsby-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack