Pope v. Heckscher
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | LOUGHRAN |
| Citation | 266 N.Y. 114,194 N.E. 53 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1934 |
| Parties | POPE v. HECKSCHER. |
266 N.Y. 114
194 N.E. 53
POPE
v.
HECKSCHER.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Dec. 31, 1934.
Action by Fred H. Pope, as trustee in bankruptcy, against August Heckscher. An order of Special Term denying defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action set forth in the complaint was affirmed by the Appellate Division (242 App. Div. 611, 271 N. Y. S. 1065), and defendant, by permission, appeals.
Orders reversed, motion to dismiss the first cause of action granted, and question certified answered. The following question was certified: ‘Do the allegations pleaded as a first cause of action in the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action?’
[266 N.Y. 115]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Frank A. Fritz, of New York City, for appellant.
LOUGHRAN, Judge.
The first cause of action declares upon a judgment of the superior court in bankruptcy of a province in the Dominion of Canada for the balance unpaid upon a subscription by the defendant to the stock [266 N.Y. 117]of a Canadian corporation. This recovery, it is sufficiently alleged, was had at the suit of the plaintiff, the trustee in bankruptcy of the corporation, in full accordance with the laws of the Dominion of Canada, after service of process by mail directed to the defendant at his address in this state. It is also alleged: ‘That it is and at all times herein mentioned was the law of Canada that any person becoming a stockholder in a Canadian corporation thereby agreed to subject and did subject himself to the duties and liabilities imposed by the laws and statutes of Canada upon stockholders in such corporations, and further agreed to subject and did subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts, and in particular to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in Bankruptcy for the enforcement of said duties and liabilities.’ The fact of the foreign law must be taken as pleaded. Hanna v. Lichtenhein, 225 N. Y. 579, 122 N. E. 625. There is no allegation that the defendant in fact consented to be bound by the decree of any Canadian court. Cf. Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N. Y. 348, 174 N. E. 706, 73 A. L. R. 1453. Is a personal liability, so fixed, to have force and effect in our courts?
The presumption in favor of recognition of a private right acquired under foreign law (Dunstan v. Higgins, 138 N. Y. 70, 33 N. E. 729, 20 L. R. A. 668, 34 Am. St. Rep. 431; Johnston v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 242 N. Y. 381, 152 N. E. 121, 46 A. L. R. 435) does not cover a personal judgment when the court rendering it was without jurisdiction over the defendant (Buchanan v. Rucker, 9 East, 191; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121, 8 Am. Dec. 225;McKinney v. Collins, 88 N. Y. 216;Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U. S. 394, 37 S. Ct. 152, 61 L. Ed. 386). While it does not here appear that the defendant was at any time present within the Dominion of Canada, the fair inference from the face of the plaintiff's pleading is that the defendant did put in motion transactions in the territory of that Dominion which, at least indirectly, resulted in the creation of obligations to its citizens. The right now evidenced by this judgment is founded upon those transactions. Whether, in the circumstances,[266 N.Y. 118]the Canadian government could by such a law empower its courts to exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hood v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
...nonresident stockholder. The rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, recently reiterated by this court in Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R 687, inno way conflicts with the conclusion herein reached. We merely hold that the stockholders, having implicitly a......
-
Smith v. Abbate
...v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 S.Ct. 389, 69 L.Ed. 783; Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652, 34 S.Ct. 926, 58 L.Ed. 1518; Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R. 687; Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express, 314 U.S. 201; In re Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., Sup., 14 N.Y.S.2d The matter of the......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...policy at the stipulated time would result in a forfeiture of premiums already paid upon the policy, an insured should be relieved [266 N.Y. 114]of the forfeiture when the failure is caused by a public war, saying: ‘The insured has as equitable right to have this amount [the premiums] resto......
-
Pink v. Highway Express, No. 48
...v. Grannis, 244 N.Y. 182, 192—196, 155 N.E. 93; Geary v. Geary, 272 N.Y. 390, 398, 6 N.E.2d 67, 108 A.L.R. 1293; cf. Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R. 687; Hood v. Guaranty Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 17, 200 N.E. 55. Such was the ruling in the New York proceeding for the liqu......
-
Hood v. Guar. Trust Co. of New York
...nonresident stockholder. The rule of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, recently reiterated by this court in Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R 687, inno way conflicts with the conclusion herein reached. We merely hold that the stockholders, having implicitly a......
-
Smith v. Abbate
...v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544, 45 S.Ct. 389, 69 L.Ed. 783; Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652, 34 S.Ct. 926, 58 L.Ed. 1518; Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R. 687; Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express, 314 U.S. 201; In re Auto Mutual Indemnity Co., Sup., 14 N.Y.S.2d The matter of the......
-
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...policy at the stipulated time would result in a forfeiture of premiums already paid upon the policy, an insured should be relieved [266 N.Y. 114]of the forfeiture when the failure is caused by a public war, saying: ‘The insured has as equitable right to have this amount [the premiums] resto......
-
Pink v. Highway Express, No. 48
...v. Grannis, 244 N.Y. 182, 192—196, 155 N.E. 93; Geary v. Geary, 272 N.Y. 390, 398, 6 N.E.2d 67, 108 A.L.R. 1293; cf. Pope v. Heckscher, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53, 97 A.L.R. 687; Hood v. Guaranty Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 17, 200 N.E. 55. Such was the ruling in the New York proceeding for the liqu......