Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1947 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Sterling CARR, Appellant, v. YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK, Ltd., et al., Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 272 App.Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262.
Action by Sterling Carr, trustee of the estate of Nippon Yusen Kaisya, bankrupt, against Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, New York, Agency in Liquidation, and Elliott V. Bell, as Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, and as Liquidator of the Business and Property in New York of the Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, New York agency in liquidation. The complaint alleged that when the Superintendent of Banks took possession of the business and property in New York state of the Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, on or about December 6, 1941, the bank's New York agency had on deposit $140,000 belonging to a corporation know as Nippon Yusen Kaisya; that on April 23, 1942, Nippon Yusen Kaisya was adjudicated bankrupt; that after plaintiff had been appointed its trustee in bankruptcy the Superintendent of Banks gave notice to creditors of Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., to file claims on or before November 23, 1942, Banking Law, Consol.Laws, c. 2, s 620, and that plaintiff's claim for the $140,000 deposit was duly filed but was rejected on February 11, 1943. The action was commenced on March 22, 1944.
Meanwhile and within six months of the rejection of the claim, plaintiff began an action in the United States District Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter. That circumstance and a provision respecting limitations in the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. s 1 et seq., were invoked to save the action.
The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six months limited by Section 625 of the Banking Law after the rejection of plaintiff's claims by the Superintendent of Banks.
From a judgment dismissing the complaint, 182 Misc. 983, 50 N.Y.S.2d 68, the plaintiff appealed. The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division, 272 App.Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262 and from the judgment of the Appellate Division the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchman v. American Foam Rubber Corporation
...L.Ed. 528 (turnover order); Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 182 Misc. 983, 50 N.Y.S.2d 68, 272 App. Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262, aff'd 297 N.Y. 674, 76 N.E.2d 330. It does not revive a cause of action based upon state law then barred by a state limitation statute. Austrian v. Williams, 2 Cir., 1......
-
Davis & Warshow, Inc. v. S. Iser, Inc.
...119 U.S. 199, 214, 7 S.Ct. 140, 147, 30 L.Ed. 358; Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 272 App.Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262, affirmed 297 N.Y. 674, 76 N.E.2d 330). This is not, in the light of the history and language of the statute, a case where the period of limitation is to be 'regarded as a......
-
Dreger v. New York State Thruway Authority
...lv. denied 56 N.Y.2d 501, 450 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 435 N.E.2d 679; Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 272 App.Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262, affd. 297 N.Y. 674, 76 N.E.2d 330). Since the first claim had never been properly commenced, CPLR 205(a) provided no relief to claimants and their second action was O......
-
Balzano v. Port of New York Authority
...713, aff'd Keep v. Lockport, 266 N.Y. 583, 195 N.E. 210; Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 272 App.Div. 64, 69 N.Y.S.2d 262, affirmed 297 N.Y. 674, 76 N.E.2d 330.' Thus it is held that section 23, Civil Practice Act is inapplicable and that plaintiff's time to institute this action had expired.......