Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Amos M. Buker et al., in their own Behalf, etc., Appellants, v. The Leighton Lea Association, Respondent, 1900 — 164 N.Y. 557 · caselaw · US
General
Amos M. Buker et al., in their own Behalf, etc., Appellants, v. The Leighton Lea Association, Respondent
164 N.Y. 557·New York Court of Appeals·1900·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
Amos M. Buker et al., in their own Behalf, etc., Appellants, v. The Leighton Lea Association, Respondent.
Bulker v. Leighton Lea Association, 18 App. Div. 548, reversed.
(Argued May 18, 1900;
decided October 2, 1900.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 12, 1897, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at an Equity Term.
George JD. Reed for appellants.
William F. Oogswell for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to • abide the event; no opinion.
' Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Martin and Landon, JJ., concur in reversal upon opinion of Follett, J., in court below. O’Brien and Landon, JJ., think that the evidence does not support the finding that the first articles of association of the defendant were amended, and therefore that the acts of the defendant, under the assumed amendment, purporting to forfeit the stock of the plaintiffs were invalid, and that equity requires defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs the amount of their respective payments upon the shares of stock subscribed for by them.
G-ray, J., dissents; Haight, J., not voting, and Werner, J., not sitting.