Robert Findlay Mfg. Co. v. Hygrade Lighting Fixture Corporation
| Decision Date | 29 March 1923 |
| Citation | 288 F. 80 |
| Parties | ROBERT FINDLAY MFG. CO. v. HYGRADE LIGHTING FIXTURE CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Francis H. Warland, of New York City, for special master.
Walter L. Post, of New York City, for Samuel Cominsky and others.
This is a motion by a special master for an order amending the decree entered herein January 22, 1923, so as to direct Samuel Shapiro, Morris Berman, and Samuel Cominsky to pay the master's fees, and for an attachment in default of such payment. Application is also made for an order directing the three men in question and Walter L. Post, their attorney, to disclose to the court what assets said Post has belonging to defendant. Only Cominsky has filed an affidavit in opposition. He objects to the relief sought as being a preference over the other creditors of the defendant, asserts that the master has no standing to make this application, and relies upon the fact that the motion was not made before the expiration of the term at which the decree was granted or during the next succeeding term. He finally contends that the individual respondents cannot be held personally liable.
An examination of the record shows that Shapiro, Berman, and Cominsky and another corporation, the Reliance Metal Spinning & Stamping Company, were the sole stockholders of defendant. This Reliance Company they also practically own and control. They seem to have been the principal officers of the company as well as of defendant corporation. When defendant was organized, it was financed by and had offices with the Reliance Company. It is obvious that their interests were close, if not identical. The patentee of the patent in suit is Harry Cohn. He, Berman, and Shapiro organized the defendant. Cohn, by the way, had been employed by plaintiff which had given him stock, and which had made him one of its officers.
Clearly the respondents upon this motion are so closely connected with the defendant company as to make the statement contained in Weston Electrical Instrument Co. v. Empire Electrical Instrument Co., 177 F. 1006, 100 C.C.A. 670, peculiarly applicable 'Per Curiam.
This court absolutely and entirely rejects the not uncommon view that the fiction of distinct corporate existence can be made to serve as a shield against the consequences of individual wrongdoing. Upon the presentation of a case showing active participation by an officer of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geehan v. Trawler Arlington, Inc.
...against a person who is not a party.' See 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice par. 71.04 (2d ed. 1975). Cf. Findlay Mfg. Co. v. Hygrade Lighting Fixture Corp., 288 F. 80, 81 (E.D.N.Y.1923). No question is raised as to personal jurisdiction over the insurers. The Superior Court had jurisdiction ove......
-
DBD Credit Funding LLC v. Silicon Labs., Inc.
...as to be almost 'identical,'" such as a corporation and the corporation's owner. Id. (quoting Robert Findlay Man. C. v. Hygrade Lighting Fixture Corp., 288 F. 80, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1923)). Thus, the history of Equity Rule 11, the predecessor to Rule 71, demonstrates that the rule was not intende......
-
DBD Credit Funding LLC v. Silicon Labs., Inc., Case No. 16-CV-05111-LHK
...as to be almost 'identical,'" such as a corporation and the corporation's owner. Id. (quoting Robert Findlay Man. Co. v. Hygrade Lighting Fixture Corp., 288 F. 80, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1923)). Modern decisions interpreting Rule 71 have similarly indicated that the rule's reach is limited. See id. a......