Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust Co.
Citation | 159 F. 191 |
Parties | BRINCKERHOFF v. HOLLAND TRUST CO. et al. ROOSEVELT et al. v. BRYANT et al. |
Decision Date | 05 February 1908 |
Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Wellman Gooch & Smyth (Herbert C. Smyth and Frederic C. Scofield, of counsel), for complainants Roosevelt and others.
George M. Van Hoesen, for receiver of Holland Trust Co.
Tunis G. Bergen, for Holland Building Ass'n.
From the papers before me it appears that in September, 1902, one Elbert A. Brinckerhoff, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Holland Building Association, filed his bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the Eastern District of New York against Robert B. Roosevelt and the Holland Building Association, charging the said Roosevelt as an officer of said Holland Building Association with certain wrongful conduct, etc., injurious to such association and its stockholders, and seeking to charge him with certain sums of money as compensation, etc. The particulars will be referred to hereafter.
This action was tried before Hon. Edward B. Thomas, then District Judge of the Eastern District of New York, and, on the facts found by him (see (C.C.) 131 F. 955), resulted in a decree in favor of the complainant as follows:
receiver a satisfaction piece of said judgment as above provided; and that, as said receiver, the Franklin Trust Company have execution against the defendant Robert B. Roosevelt for the sums decreed to be paid by said defendant, unless due payment be made within thirty days.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Nursing Resources, Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones & Co., Inc., WD
...the agent to subrogation unless his conduct was such as to deny him the consideration of a court of equity. Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust Co., 159 F. 191, 205 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.1908); 73 Am.Jur.2d Subrogation § 52 The right to restitution for unjust enrichment presupposes (1) that the defendant ......
-
The Manhattan Shirt Company v. Sarnoff-Irving Hat Stores, Inc.
...... expressly declined to say. The solicitor for the intervenor. also cited the case of Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust. Co., (C. C.) 146 F. 203; Id. (C. C.) 159 F. 191, in support of its right to ......
-
Manhattan Shirt Co. v. Sarnoffirving Hat Stores, Inc.
...declined to say. The solicitor for the intervenor also cited the case of Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust Co. (C. C.) 146 F. 203; Id. (C. C.) 159 F. 191, in support of its right to intervene. That case, however, is of no pertinency to the instant one. It appears to be a case where intervention......
- Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust Co.