Godley v. Crandall & Godley Co. — 197 N.Y. 579

Majority

p. 579

Elizabeth McM. Godley, Respondent, v. Crandall & Godley Company et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

Headnote

Godley v. Crandall & Godley Go., 134 App. Div. 950 , modified.

(Argued January 4, 1910;

decided January 18, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial departments entered October 15, 1909, which affirmed an order of

p. 580

Special Term appointing a receiver of the defendant Crandall t% Godley Company and restraining said company and its directors from reducing its capital stock or distributing its assets.

The following questions were certified : “ (1) Has the court in this action power to appoint a receiver of the defendant corporation ?

“ (2) Upon any view of the facts presented by the record, had the court power to appoint a receiver of the defendant corporation 1

“ (3) Upon any view of the facts presented by the record, had the court power to enjoin the defendant corporation from holding a meeting to reduce its capital stock ? ”

Edgar T. Brackett and James J. Allen for appellants.

W. Russell Oshorn and David Bennett King for respondent.

Order modified so as to limit receivership to property mentioned in paragraph XII of complaint, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Questions certified answered as follows: 1. The court has not power in this action to appoint a receiver of the defendant corporation, but lias power to appoint a receiver of such of its property as is alleged to have been transferred and secured to the use of another corporation, to preserve the same during the pendency of the action. 2. The same statement answers the second question. 3. The court had power to enjoin the defendant corporation from holding a meeting to reduce its capital stock. No opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ".