Byrnes v. Chase Nat'l Bank
| Decision Date | 13 June 1929 |
| Citation | 168 N.E. 423,251 N.Y. 551 |
| Parties | William J. BYRNES, Appellant, v. CHASE NATIONAL BANK et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment, entered January 9, 1929, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (225 App. Div. 102, 232 N. Y. S. 224), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint as to the respondents herein. The action was brought to recover from the respondents Conant and Elliman, who were managers of the Federal Syndicate, and the respondents the Chase National Bank and Hughes and Harbeck, who were subscribers to the Federal Syndicate (other defendants were not served), damages for the alleged breach of a contract averred to have been made by all the defendants respondents in the name of the Federal Syndicate by Conant, president, for the conveyance or procurement of a conveyance of a certain tract consisting of 30 acres of land in New Jersey to one Thomas J. Whelan, assignor of plaintiff.L. Barton Case, of New York City, for appellant.
George N. Hamlin, of New York City, for respondents Chase Nat. Bank and others.
John L. Bigelow, of New York City, for Ernest L. Conant and others, appearing specially.
No appeal having been taken to the Appellate Division from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint as to the defendants Conant and Elliman, the question of the liability of said defendants is not before this court, and they have been erroneously designated as respondents on this appeal.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, dismissing the complaint as to the defendants other than Conant and Elliman, should be affirmed, with costs.
HUBBS, J., not sitting.
Judgment accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cronin
...263 N.Y. 177, 186–189, 188 N.E. 641 [1934] ; Byrnes v. Chase Natl. Bank, 225 App.Div. 102, 108, 232 N.Y.S. 224 [1928], affd. 251 N.Y. 551, 168 N.E. 423 [1929] ). Accordingly, as defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff's motion, Supreme Court properly gr......
-
Brown v. Bedell
...in New York. Jones v. Gould, 209 N. Y. 419, 103 N. E. 720;Byrnes v. Chase Nat. Bank, 225 App. Div. 102, 232 N. Y. S. 224, affirmed 251 N. Y. 551, 168 N. E. 423. The leading Massachusetts case (Williams v. Inhabitants of Milton, 215 Mass. 1, 102 N. E. 355) is cited with approval in Crehan v.......
-
Wild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...these (Jones v. Gould, 209 N. Y. 419, 103 N. E. 720; Byrnes v. Chase National Bank, 225 App. Div. 102, 232 N. Y. S. 224, affirmed 251 N. Y. 551, 168 N. E. 423), and held that they were not partnerships. The differences between those syndicates and that at bar are of no moment, except that e......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon, Formerly Known Y., for the Certificate Holders of Cwabs, Inc. v. Cronin
...Association Law § 2 (2) (see Brown v Bedell, 263 NY 177, 186-189 [1934]; Byrnes v Chase Natl. Bank, 225 App Div 102, 108 [1928], affd 251 NY 551 [1929]). Accordingly, as defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to plaintiff's motion, Supreme Court properly granted su......