Case Name: James A. Grant et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Greene Consolidated Copper Company et al., Respondents and Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-04-23
Citations: 223 N.Y. 655
Docket Number: 
Parties: James A. Grant et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Greene Consolidated Copper Company et al., Respondents and Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 223
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
James A. Grant et al., Appellants and Respondents, v. Greene Consolidated Copper Company et al., Respondents and Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Grant v. Greene Consolidated Copper Co., 169 App. Div. 206, affirmed.
(Argued April 3, 1918;
decided April 23, 1918.)
Cross-appeals from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered August 20, 1915. Plaintiffs appeal from so much of said judgment as affirms a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. Defendants, appellants, appeal from so much of the said Appellate Division judgment as adjudges “ that the eighth conclusion of law, that the court has. no jurisdiction to grant any relief in this action to the plaintiffs against the above-named defendants, be and the same hereby is reversed.” The action is a representative one brought by plaintiffs as stockholders of defendant Cobre Grande Copper Company of Arizona to have defendant the Cananea Company, a Mexican corporation, of which defendant Greene is president, adjudged to be the holder in trust for the benefit of the Cobre Company of certain Mexican ' mines and mining properties and to compel the Cananea Company, and Greene, together with the Greene Consolidated Company, a West Virginia corporation, of which Greene is also president, to account to the Cobre Company and to the plaintiffs for income and proceeds arising from the use and operation of the mines and properties in question. The issues tried were whether or not the plaintiffs, or either of them, were at the time of the beginning of the action residents of the state, and whether or not certain judgments set up as separate defenses were in fact made and, if so, whether they or any- of them are res adjudicata of the issues herein.
Walter B. Raymond and Victor C. Cormier for plaintiffs, appellants and respondents.
M. E. Harby and A. L. Humes for defendants, respondents and appellants.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant copper companies; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Hogan, Caedozo, Pound, Ceane and Andeews, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.