Case Name: LOEB v. BIEN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-03-09
Citations: 63 N.Y.S. 202
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOEB v. BIEN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 63
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
LOEB v. BIEN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 9, 1900.)
■Corporations — Debts—Directors’ Personal Liability — Reports—Failure to File — Statutes.
Laws 1899, c. 354, amending Stock Corporation Law, § 30, declaring that no director or officer of a corporation shall be liable to a creditor because of any failure to make and file an annual report, whether heretofore or hereafter accruing, unless written notice is served on him within three years, does not relieve such an officer from liability for failure to make and file such report in actions begun before the passage' of such amendment.
Appeal from trial term, New York county.
Action by.Willy Loeb against Julius Bien, Jr., and another, as directors of a corporation, to recover against them personally for debts of the corporation, because of their alleged failure to file and publish an annual report required by Stock Corporation Law, § 30. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Re's ersed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Frank C. Avery, for appellant.
Franklin Bien, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case coming on for trial before the court and a jury, counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the action cannot be maintained, as chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899 "swept away all remedies existing prior to the act, without any saving clause." The question as to the application of chapter 354 of the Laws of 1899, where an action had been commenced prior to its passage to recover the penalty prescribed for the failure to file a report, was passed upon in Vineyard Co. v. Fritz (decided Feb. 23, 1900) 62 N. Y. Supp. 775, and it was held that that act did not apply. That decision is controlling, and it follows that the complaint was improperly dismissed.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.