Case Name: Stanislaus de Ridder, as Administrator of the Estate of Guillaume Reusens, Respondent, v. Julian M. Gerard et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-10-23
Citations: 221 N.Y. 665
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stanislaus de Ridder, as Administrator of the Estate of Guillaume Reusens, Respondent, v. Julian M. Gerard et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Stanislaus de Ridder, as Administrator of the Estate of Guillaume Reusens, Respondent, v. Julian M. Gerard et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
(Argued October 9, 1917;
decided October 23, 1917.)
Reusens v. Gerard, 160 App. Div. 625, affirmed.
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 13, 1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendants, respondents, for judgment in their favor upon the pleadings in an action for damages for deceit or false representations alleged to have been fraudulently made by the said defendants and others in a prospectus whereby it is alleged the plaintiff entered into an underwriting subscription contract by which he subscribed for and bought certain shares of stock. The answer set up, among other defenses, the Statute of Limitations.
The following questions were certified: “ (1) Were all the plaintiff’s damages included in one cause of action arising from the original delivery of the circular and alleged' false representations made in November, 1906? (2) Upon-the complaint, answer and reply was the claim of the plaintiff barred by the Statute of Limitations? (3) Did the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? ”
John M. Bowers and Latham G. Reed for appellants.
Frederick H. Sanborn for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered as follows: Second question in the negative so far as concerns the cause of action to recover damages on account of stock purchased in open market, and in affirmative so far as concerns cause' of action based on. subscription agreement; third question in the affirmative; first question not answered; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Cuddeback, Pound, M cLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Not voting: Hogan, J.