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.
Delos D. Pier, Respondent, v. Benjamin George, Appellant, 1881 — 86 N.Y. 613 · caselaw · US
Corporations
Delos D. Pier, Respondent, v. Benjamin George, Appellant
86 N.Y. 613·New York Court of Appeals·1881·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
Delos D. Pier, Respondent, v. Benjamin George, Appellant.
An assignee of a claim against a manufacturing corporation may maintain an action against a trustee thereof, to enforce the liability for its debts given by the General Manufacturing Act because of failure to file an annual report, or because of signing a false report.
Pier v. George (20 Hun, 210), reversed.
(Argued April 28, 1881;
decided October 4, 1881.)
This action was brought against defendant as a trustee of the “Newburgh Lager Beer Brewery,” a corporation organized under the General Manufacturing Act, to recover the amount of certain promissory notes made by the corporation, payable to Pier Brothers & Co., and transferred to plaintiff, for which defendant was claimed to be liable because of failure of the corporation to file an annual report, and because of his signing a report containing a material false representation, knowing it to be false.
The case presented the same questions and was argued with Pier v. Hanmore (ante, p. 95), and was decided principally upon the authority of that case.
It was claimed by defendant, that the action was not maintainable upon an assigned claim. Held untenable. The court citing Bolere v. Crosby (49 N. Y. 183) Hoag v. Lamont (60 id. 96).
Samuel Hand for appellant.
Charles H. Searle for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Rapallo, J.,]
Rapallo, J.,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.