Case Name: WARSHAWSKY v. GRAND THEATRE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-06-27
Citations: 94 N.Y.S. 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARSHAWSKY v. GRAND THEATRE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 94
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
WARSHAWSKY v. GRAND THEATRE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 27, 1905.)
Bills and Notes—Consideration-Compromised Claim.
An agreement between a corporation and a retiring stockholder compromising the stockholder’s demand for special services rendered as an officer of the corporation is a good consideration for a note given by the corporation to the stockholder for the amount of the demand as compromised.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 7, Cent. Dig. Bills and Notes, §§ 202, 205.]
Scott, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Samuel Warshawsky against the Grand Theatre Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and MacLEAN and DUGRO, JJ.
Alexander Rosenthal, for appellant.
Henry M. Flateau, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
One Fishel was a stockholder and director in the Grand Theatre Company, of which company all other stockholders were actors. The corporation had no by-laws. At a meeting of all the directors at the end of the season of 1903, Fishel was told that it was considered not advantageous to the company to have connected with it a person not an actor, and that it was desirable for the benefit of the company that he should sell his stock. Fishel objected, and said then he should be paid $1,500 for the special services he had rendered as treasurer. This compensation was cut down to $500, payable in the company's note due in November, 1904, when the company would be in funds. Nothing shows that the treasurer was to work for nothing. The directors, of all persons, should know about that. Admitting that something was due, they compromised the demand and settled the compensation at one-third. That was a good consideration for the note, which is contested apparently only by a person who came into the corporation later on by buying all the stock. It is not contradicted 'that the plaintiff acquired the note by paying for it in cash before maturity.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
DUGRO, J., concurs.