Majority
Headnote
Manueacturing corporations — Trustees—Laws 1848, chap. 40, § 23.The plaintiff asserts that the claims, amounting to $300,776, held by the bank against the mill, on the 1st day of May, 1875, have been fully and legally paid; and that between May 1, 1875, and the date of the failure of the bank, a new indebtedness, amounting to $419,361, was incurred by the mill to the bank with the assent of the defendants, and that they are liable to the receiver of the bank for the sums by which the indebtedness exceeds the capital stock of the mill The referee found as a fact:
“ VIII. That to the creation of the debt of the Schaghticoke Woolen Mills to the Merchants & Mechanics’ Bank of Troy, existing on the 1st day of May, 1875, or to any part thereof, the defendant, Daniel Eobinson, did not assent.”
As a conclusion of law: “ 1. That neither of the defendants are liable for any part of the indebtedness of the Schaghticoke Woolen Mills in excess of its capital stock existing on the 1st day of May, 1875.” The plaintiff insists that the eighth finding of fact is without any evidence tending to sustain it, that it is a ruling upon a question of law, and that the referee erred in finding it, and the general term in sustaining it.
If the plaintiff’s position is, in fact, well taken, he should have excepted to the eighth finding pursuant to § 993 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Brush v. Lee, 36 N. Y., 49 , 53; Gidley v. Gidley, 65 id., 169, 171 ; Sickles v. Flanagan, 79 id., 224; Mead v. Smith, 28 Hun, 639 . But no exception was taken to this finding, nor was an exception to the conclusion of law above quoted, which seems to be a sequence to the finding of fact above quoted. Neither did the plaintiff request the referee to find the converse of this finding of fact, pursuant’to § 1023 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not appear that the case contains all of the evidence, or all bearing upon the eighth finding; and on such a record this court must presume that the finding was sustained by the evidence. Porter v. Smith, 107 N, Y., 531 ; 12 N. Y. State Rep., 479; Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y., 226 ; Cox v. James, 45 id, 557. However, it is quite unnecessary to determine whether Eobinson assented, within the meaning of the section, to the creation of the debts existing May 1, 1875, for the referee finds as a fact (sixth finding of fact) that on that date he knew the amount of the indebtedness then outstanding, and, as a conclusion of law (eighth con
Thus, the liability of the defendants depends upon whether the commercial paper found in the bank after its failure, and amounting to $419,861, was then an existing indebtedness in favor of the bank, and against the defendants. Had this paper remained unpaid in the hands of the person to whom it was given, the liability ■of the defendants, as assenting trustees, for the excess, could not have been successfully denied.
The referee does not find whether the existence of the contract of May 1, 1875, was known, or unknown to the boards of the two corporations, nor is it disclosed by the evidence; but if does appear that the board of directors of the bank consisted of four members, D. Thomas Yail, a director and president, Charles E. Church, .a director and vice-president, Francis Sims, a director and cashier. The name of the fourth director does not appear. Church was a partner of Eobinson and an endorser on some of the paper made by the mill after May 1, 1875. The board of trustees of the mill consisted of five members, D. Thomas Yail, a trustee and president, Daniel Eobinson, a trustee, Chester Griswold, a trustee, William Howard Hart, a trustee, and Thomas A. Knickerbocker, a trustee from.May 1, ,1875, to June 18, 1878, when James E. Pinkham succeeded Knickerbocker as a trustee, and from that date until the failure of the mill its trustees were Yail, Eobinson, Griswold, Hart and Pinkham.
There is no evidence that the financial transactions between-the bank and the mill prior, or subsequent to May 1, 1875, were unknown to, or disapproved by the board of either corporation, and this court will not, for the purpose of reversing the judgment, pre■sume that the transactions were unauthorized by the boards. The contract does not appear to have been entered into for the personal benefit of Yail or Eobinson, but solely for the benefit of the then involved corporations, and there is no evidence that Yail or Eobinson pi’ofited, or sought to profit by the contract. The contract was one which the boards of the corporations had power to authorize their presidents to make, or to ratify after it had been made, and the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the contract was not authorized or ratified by the boards. Bank of Vergennes v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91 ; Gillett v. Campbell, 1 Denio, 520 ; Elwell v. Dodge, 33 Barb., 336 ; Chemical National Bank v. Kohner, 85 N. Y., 189 , 193; Smith v. Hull Glass Co., 11 C. B., 897 , 929; Lee v. Pittsburgh Coal & Mining Co., 56 How., 373 ; aff’d, 75 N. Y., 601 ; Morawetz on Corp. (2 ed.), §§ 336, 538, 593. The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption that the contract was entered into
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur, except Parker, J., not sitting.