General
David A. Brown, Appellant, Respondent, v. Walter E. Bedell and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Lester Alexander and Others, Respondents
238 A.D. 812·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1933·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
David A. Brown, Appellant, Respondent, v. Walter E. Bedell and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Lester Alexander and Others, Respondents.
Affg. 148 Misc. 550.
[MAJORITY]
No opinion. Present — Finch, P. J., Martin, O’Malley, Sherman and Townley, JJ.; O’Malley, J., dissents.
[DISSENT — O’Malley, J. (dissenting).]
O’Malley, J. (dissenting).
In my opinion the defendants Bedell, Davidow and Eisenberg are not to be regarded as trustees and the other syndicate members beneficiaries, so far as strangers to the syndicate are concerned. The named defendants, as members of the syndicate, were, it seems to me, mere agents for all of its members. Practical expediency required that broad powers be granted to a limited number. Agents as well as trustees may have plenary powers. I, therefore, dissent and vote for a reversal of the judgment and for a new trial at which a determination of all issues tendered may be had.