TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States Steel

Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Trustee Under the Will of David P. Barhydt, Deceased, Respondent, v. United States Steel Corporation, Appellant

Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. United States Steel, 123 N.E. 867 (N.Y. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 3, 1919
Citations
123 N.E. 867226 N.Y. 6931919 N.Y. LEXIS 1072
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from two orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 31,1919, which affirmed two orders of" Special Term, one granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment in its favor upon the pleadings' and the other denying defendant’s cross motion and overruling its demurrer to the complaint. The complaint - alleged that plaintiff is trustee under the will of David P. Barhydt, deceased; that part of the estate consists of shares of the preferred stock of defendant corporation; that by the will the trustee is given permission to retain such securities but elected to sell them and for that purpose presented to defendant the properly indorsed certificate of stock standing in the plaintiff’s name as trustee under the will of David P. Barhydt together with a certified copy of the will, receipts for the payment of transfer taxes and other necessary papers and requested that the transfer be made to the purchaser, which transfer the defendant corporation refused to make on the sole ground that it did not appear conclusively that the plaintiff had the right and power as a matter of law to sell the stock without obtaining authority from the court. The following question was certified: “ Does the amended complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”

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

Opinion of the Court

Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 11930: 11931: 11939: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Lewis18 N.E.2d 635 (N.Y. 1939)
  2. In re the Estate of Pulitzer139 Misc. 575 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  3. In re the Estate of Pressprich124 Misc. 15 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)
  4. In re the Estate of Walker138 Misc. 149 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Lewis18 N.E.2d 635 (N.Y. 1939)
  2. In re the Estate of Pulitzer139 Misc. 575 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  3. In re the Estate of Walker138 Misc. 149 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)
  4. In re the Estate of Pressprich124 Misc. 15 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)

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