Case Name: Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Resp't, v. The Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-12-14
Citations: 41 N.Y. St. Rep. 783
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Resp’t, v. The Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 41
Pages: 783–787

Head Matter:
Matthew Gaunt Hepworth, Resp’t, v. The Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 14, 1891.)
Abatement and revivor—Corporations—Torts.
Pending action against the defendant for an assault committed by one of its servants its charter expired by limitation. Held, that the action was properly continued against its directors as trustees; that the word “ creditor ” in the statute embraces persons whose claims are based on torts. (Dykman, J., dissents.)
Appeal from order continuing an action for assault and battery against the trustees of defendant
The facts appear fully in the opinions.
B. D. Silliman (Frederic A. Ward, of counsel), for app’lt; Jas. K. Averill (Edwd. V. B. Kissam, of counsel), for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
On the 9th of June, 1889, the plaintiff handed to the defendant's ticket seller in Mew York money for a passage across the river to Brooklyn. The defendant kept his money, refused a ticket and committed an assault on him and forcibly put Mm in the street The plaintiff commenced an action for the assault in October, 1889. The corporation denied the facts on which the plaintiff based his complaint, and while the action was at issue and untried the charter of the defendant expired by its own limitation. The Eevised Statutes provide that on a dissolution of a corporation the directors shall be trustees for the creditors and stockholders with full power to settle the affairs of the corporation. A power to continue the action against the corporation when its charter expired pending an action against it was given by chap. 295, Laws of 1832. This law was repealed in 1880. Chap. 245, Laws of 1880.
The tort stands upon the same basis as a contract. 12 Hun, 46 ; 37 id., 563 ; 52 Barb., 26 ; 4 Central Bep., 387.
These cases either hold or approve of the principle that a conveyance made during a pending litigation to defeat the collection of a judgment for a tort can be set aside as if it was a contract debt In other words, the statute creditor embraces those persons whose claims are based upon torts.
The charter pledges the property of the corporation to pay all damages for misfeasance of the company's employees. The law makes the directors trustees to settle the affairs of the corporation ,and to pay all debts against the corporation. The court has the power to continue the action which was pending at the dissolution of the corporation of necessity. Such power existed before the .act of 1832, and exists since the repeal of 1880.
A judgment against a corporation whose charter had been amended by decree, and after notice by the attorney for the corporation that he had no further power to appear in the case, was held bad by the court of appeals. McCulloch v Norwood, 58 N. Y., 562.
In the present case the order makes the statute trustees defendants, and this seems to be the rule recognized in McCulloch v. Norwood, supra.
The order is therefore right and should be affirmed, with costs .and disbursements.
Pratt, J., concurs.