Case ID: ny_214/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rachel Weinman et al., as Executrices of Moses Weinman, Deceased, Appellants, v. The Blake and Knowles Steam Pump Works, Respondent.
    (Argued March 22, 1915;
    decided April 13, 1915.)
    
      Weinman v. Blake & Knowles Steam Pump Works, 156 App. Div. 168, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 5, 1913, in favor of defendant upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    This controversy involves the question whether the holders of 403 debentures or bonds issued by the defendant corporation and payable on July 1, 1911, were then entitled to receive for each debenture the principal sum of $485 plus a premium of $48.50, making a total of $533.50 for each debenture, as claimed by the 'appellants, or only the sum of $485 for each debenture, as contended by thé respondent. On July 1,1903, the defendant issued 1,883 debentures of the aggregate amount of $913,255. This issue, with the exception of the 402 above mentioned, was redeemed in annual installments by a so-called sinking fund provided for in the trust deed, at a premium of $48.50 or the total sum of $533.50 for each bond. As provided in the deed, the particular debentures so redeemed in each year were drawn under the direction of the trustee, the last installment so drawn being that of the year 1910. There then remained outstanding the 402 debentures which matured by their terms on July 1,1911. The respondent then paid these at their face obligation of $485 per bond and insists that no premium is owing upon them.
    
      Louis Marshall for appellants.
    
      David Leventritt for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ. Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., and Collin, J., dissent on dissenting opinion of Scott, J., below.