TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Meisel v. Central Trust Company of New York

Insa R. Meisel, Suing on Behalf of Herself and Others, Appellant, v. Central Trust Company of New York, Respondent

Meisel v. Cent. Trust Co. of N.Y., 119 N.E. 1059 (N.Y. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 26, 1918
Citations
119 N.E. 1059223 N.Y. 5891918 N.Y. LEXIS 1289
Summary
Appeal from a judgment, entered November 5, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed an order of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint, sustained such demurrer and directed a dismissal of the complaint, which alleged a trust agreement under which certain shares constituting capital stock of an Illinois company, the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, were assigned by another holding company to the defendant trustee in trust for the benefit of the holders of bonds issued under the agreement and as security for the payment thereof; the indorsement in blank of the certificates for this stock, and their delivery to the defendant which by agreement was expressly made the legal owner; the issue of bonds thereunder to the amount of $71,353,000; the ownership of the plaintiff of "four of these bonds, in par value $4,000; a default upon the bonds; a refusal by the trustee to advertise the stock for sale; a suit of foreclosure by the trustee which resulted in an expense of more than $317,000; the sale of the mortgaged property by the court for $7,135,300; the entry of a deficiency judgment against the mortgagor for $68,239,-252.88; the receipt by the defendant of the cash paid upon the sale to the amount of $1,335,938.68; a demand upon the • defendant by the plaintiff for an accounting of its receipts for disbursements and proceedings under the trust agreement; a similar demand by other holders of these bonds; the failure and refusal of the defendant to account to any of the bondholders.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

*590 Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Not sitting: His cock, Ch. J.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1934: 11939: 11940: 21956: 119342026peak 1940 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gerdes v. Reynolds22 N.E.2d 331 (N.Y. 1939)
  2. In re the Estate of Balfe152 Misc. 739 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1934)
  3. Davis v. Cohn260 A.D. 624 (1940)
  4. Katz v. Manhattan General, Inc.1 A.D.2d 134 (1956)
  5. Nachman v. Tennessee Electric Power Co.174 Misc. 425 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Katz v. Manhattan General, Inc.1 A.D.2d 134 (1956)
  2. Davis v. Cohn260 A.D. 624 (1940)
  3. Nachman v. Tennessee Electric Power Co.174 Misc. 425 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940)
  4. Gerdes v. Reynolds22 N.E.2d 331 (N.Y. 1939)
  5. In re the Estate of Balfe152 Misc. 739 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list