Case Name: Michael C. Cunningham, Plaintiff, v. Samuel S. Glauber et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12
Citations: 61 Misc. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael C. Cunningham, Plaintiff, v. Samuel S. Glauber et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Michael C. Cunningham, Plaintiff, v. Samuel S. Glauber et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, ¡New York Special Term,
December, 1908.)
Corporations — Dissolution of corporation — Effect of dissolution—. Effect on causes of action surviving against corporation and actions pending to enforce them — Against stock corporation — Action for negligence.
The provisions of section 30 of the General Corporation Law are not applicable to a stock corporation, but the provisions of section 57 of the Stock Corporation Law control; and an action against the directors of a stock corporation after voluntary dissolution, to recover damages for a negligent injury for which the corporation was answerable, cannot be maintained, as such-a cause of action continues against the corporation and not against the directors as trustees for the purposes of a suit.
Action against a stock corporation after voluntary dissolution to recover damages.
May & Jacobson, for plaintiff.
Goldsmith & Rosenthal, for defendants.

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
This action, brought against the directors of a stock corporation, after -voluntary dissolution to recover damages for a negligent injury for which the corporation was answerable, proceeds upon the theory that section 30- of the General Corporation Law applies, and the case of Marstaller v. Ogden Mills, 148 N. Y. 398, is cited as an authority for the plaintiff. By section 57 of the Stock Corporation T,aw (enacted in the year 1896) specific provision is made for the enforcement of demands against a stock corporation after voluntary dissolution, it being declared: " Said corporation shall nevertheless continue in existence for the purpose of paying any existing debts and may sue and be sued for the purpose of enforcing such debts and obligations." Marstaller v. Ogden Mills was a case of a business corporation, and the matters in suit arose prior to the enactment of section 57 of the Stock Corporation La,w, hence that authority has no application to the present controversy. The special provisions of section 57 of the Stock Corporation Law must necessarily control over the general provisions of section 30 of the General Corporation Law in a case thus specially provided for (see O'Reilly v. Greene, 18 Misc. Rep, 423, 426), and, accordingly, the cause of action stated in the complaint was one which continued against the corporation, not against the directors as trustees for the purposes of a suit. The demurrer must, therefore, be sustained, with costs.
Demurrer sustained.