Case ID: ad_167/html/0800-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Laughlin, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Brock, Appellant, v. Ruel W. Poor and Walter H. Bennett, Individually and as Trustees under an Agreement Dated November 29, 1904, and Others, Respondents.
    First Department,
    May 7, 1915.
    Party —violation of trust agreement —joint conspirator.
    One who, with full knowledge of a trust agreement executed by stockholders and of their rights thereunder, conspires and co-operates with the trustees in a violation of the trust, is liable with the trustees as a joint conspirator and may be joined as a defendant in a suit against them brought to compel an accounting.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Charles Brock, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of December, 1914, sustaining a demurrer of the defendant Stephens to the amended complaint.
    
      Burt D. Whedon, for the appellant.
    
      Thomas D. Adams [Charles A. Brodek and Edgar J Nathan with him on the brief], for the respondents.
   Laughlin, J.:

The material facts are set forth in the opinion on the appeals from the orders sustaining the demurrers of the defendants Poor and Bennett (167 App. Div. 784), which is to be handed down herewith.

The respondent Stephens demurred on the same grounds upon which the defendants Poor and Bennett demurred. According to the allegations of the complaint, Stephens, with full knowledge of the trust agreement and of the rights of the stockholders thereunder, entered into the agreement with the trustees and co-operated with them as a joint conspirator in wrongfully' and fraudulently violating their trusts. If these facts be true, he is equally accountable with them. (Bosworth v. Allen, 168 N. Y. 157; Mawhinney v. Bliss, 124 App. Div. 609; affd., 194 N. Y.. 590.)

It follows that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for an order overruling the demurrer granted, with ten dollars costs, but with leave to respondents to withdraw the demurrer and interpose an answer on payment of the costs of the appeal and of the motion.

Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Olarke and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to respondents to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.