From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Denise v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 1, 1933
239 App. Div. 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

April, 1933.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Erie County.


We feel constrained by precedent to reverse the judgment appealed from. We have examined the records and briefs in the appeal taken to this court in Pfanmiller v. Groesbeck ( 68 App. Div. 651), and find the determination in that case to be a direct authority in opposition to the view taken by the learned trial court in the instant case. The same statute is involved, the employees there being professional baseball players instead of hockey players as here. We grant a new trial for the reason that two important questions remain undetermined, viz.: (1) Whether or not all or some of the defendants were stockholders in the corporation, and (2) whether or not the statutory notice was served upon defendants. All concur except Sears, P.J., and Crosby, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance. Judgments reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Affd., 263 N.Y. 551.
See Stock Corp. Law, § 71, and antecedent statutes. —


Summaries of

Denise v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 1, 1933
239 App. Div. 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

Denise v. Welch

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED F. DENISE, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE T. WELCH and Others, Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1933

Citations

239 App. Div. 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Evans v. Stern Co.

ds `operatives and laborers' which follow it ( Gurney v. Atlantic G.W. Ry. Co., 58 N.Y. 358), and while it…