Corporations
O'DAY v. J. CHRIS. G. HUPFEL BREWING CO.
62 N.Y.S. 47330 Misc. Rep. 460·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term·1900·NY
Brief incoming
Source-anchored 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
(30 Misc. Rep. 460.)
O’DAY v. J. CHRIS. G. HUPFEL BREWING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 8, 1900.)
Appeal—Hearing—Evidence to Sustain Judgment.
Record evidence of the existence of a corporation, curing a defect in the proof of its existence, is admissible on appeal for the purpose of sustaining the judgment below.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Ninth district.
Action by Patrick O’Day against the J. Chris. G. Hupfel Brewing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Chris. G. Hupfel, for appellant.
Robert J. Robeson, for respondent.
[MAJORITY — PEE CUEIAM.]
PEE CUEIAM.
The sole question presented on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the proof of corporate existence. Such defect as existed has been obviated by proof presented on this appeal, and, being record evidence, is, under the authorities, admissible for the purpose of sustaining the judgment below. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Munoz v. Wilson, 111 N. Y. 299, 18 N. E. 855; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 N. Y. 281, 23 N. E. 367; Bank v. Emeric, 2 Sandf. 718. The judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.