From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1905
102 App. Div. 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)

Opinion

March, 1905.

Joseph A. Burr, for the appellant.

Albert E. Lamb, for the respondent.


This is an application by a person claiming to be a stockholder in the Union Bank of Brooklyn, and objecting to the proposed merger thereof with the Kings County Bank of Brooklyn, for the appointment of three persons to appraise the value of his stock under section 36 of the Banking Law (Laws of 1892, chap. 689, added by Laws of 1895, chap. 382). The referee, to whom the proceeding was referred to take proof, found that the petitioner, Henry C. Rogers, was not at the times mentioned in his petition the owner of any stock of the Union Bank. The evidence leaves no doubt of the correctness of this conclusion, for it shows that the 136 shares of stock which he claimed to own were in fact the property of one William H. Ziegler. We agree with the referee that section 36 of the Banking Law refers to the actual ownership of stock and not to shares standing in the name of one but really the property of another. The petitioner, Henry C. Rogers, was shown to have no interest entitling him to maintain this proceeding and it was, therefore, properly dismissed.

The order and judgment should be affirmed.

HIRSCHBERG, P.J., BARTLETT, WOODWARD and JENKS, JJ., concurred; HOOKER, J., not voting.

Order and judgment thereon dismissing application affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Matter of Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1905
102 App. Div. 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)
Case details for

Matter of Rogers

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of HENRY C. ROGERS, Appellant, for the…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1905

Citations

102 App. Div. 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)
92 N.Y.S. 465

Citing Cases

Matter of Cantor

In view of the fact that the merged bank no longer exists after the merger, while the other continues to…

Bache Co. v. General Instrument Corp.

It then went on to say, by way of dictum and without supporting rationale, that the word "plainly means" that…