Case Name: Samuel H. Lummis, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of J. Spencer Crosby & Co., Appellant, v. J. Spencer Crosby et al., Defendants, and Anna H. Stier, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-10-15
Citations: 224 N.Y. 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel H. Lummis, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of J. Spencer Crosby & Co., Appellant, v. J. Spencer Crosby et al., Defendants, and Anna H. Stier, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 224
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
Samuel H. Lummis, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of J. Spencer Crosby & Co., Appellant, v. J. Spencer Crosby et al., Defendants, and Anna H. Stier, Respondent.
Lummis v. Crosby, 181 App. Div. 884, affirmed.
(Argued September 30, 1918;
decided October 15, 1918.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 2, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendant, respondent, for judgment on the pleadings. This action was brought under sections 90, 91 and 91-a of the General Corporation Law, to compel the defendants (other than the defendant corporation) to account for their official conduct in the management and disposition of the funds of the corporation of J. Spencer Crosby & Company, and compelling them to pay to the corporation or its creditors any money', and value of any property which they had illegally acquired to themselves or transferred to others through any neglect of or failure to perform or of any other violation of their duties. The complaint alleged that the respondent Stier some six months before the defendant Crosby & Co. was adjudicated bankrupt was an officer and stockholder thereof, and that the president of said corporation purchased her stock paying her therefor out of the funds of the corporation. The complaint was held insufficient on the ground that it failed to allege that any of the creditors were such at the time of the diversion of the corporate property. The following questions were certified: “ 1. Does the complaint in this action set forth a cause of action? 2. Is the order of the court below sustaining judgment in favor of the respondent on the pleadings correct? ”
Irving L. Ernst for appellant.
Lynn C. Norris and Arthur P. Hilton for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and McLaughlin, JJ. Not sitting: Crane, J.