New York Supreme Court, 1895

Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co.

Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co.
New York Supreme Court · Decided July 26, 1895 · Pratt
35 N.Y.S. 80; 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 609; 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 259 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Booraem, Hamilton, Beckett & Ransom, for appellant., Isaac N. Mills, for respondent.

Reynolds v. New York Building Loan Banking Co.

Opinion of the Court

PRATT, J.

There is no dispute that the secretary was the proper person to receive notices of withdrawal of funds. The power to receive notices implied the power to reject them, if irregular, and the duty to inform the applicant of the action taken. Any other rule would give a corporation a license to commit fraud. Had the secretary, when the notice was given, announced to plaintiff that the transfer of shares to him must be entered on the corporation books, that would have been promptly done. That obligation was for the benefit of the company. Once waived, it cannot now be insisted upon.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.