Kupferman v. Consolidated Research & Manufacturing Co. case
brief summary
459 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1972)
CASE FACTS
The trial court entered a judgment in 1962, awarding damages to appellee, receiver of an underwriting company, against the corporation for the corporation's breach of an agreement to file a post-effective amendment with respect to shares issuable to the underwriting company if the underwriting was successfully completed. The corporation did not appeal the 1962 judgment. Pursuant to an action on a related matter against appellant, a former director of the corporation, appellant sought to vacate the 1962 judgment on the ground that the trial court would not have entered it if it had been aware of a release executed by the underwriting company in favor of the corporation, which was known to appellee's attorney but not to the corporation's. The trial court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, denying appellant former director's motion to vacate a 1962 judgment in favor of appellee receiver. The court ruled that since appellant had not initiated an independent action for fraud inter partes, he could only prevail upon a showing that appellee's attorney practiced fraud upon the trial court by not disclosing the release.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
459 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1972)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant, former director of a
corporation, appealed an order of the United States District for the
Southern District of New York, which denied his motion to vacate a
1962 judgment awarding damages against the corporation in favor of
appellee, receiver of an underwriting company.CASE FACTS
The trial court entered a judgment in 1962, awarding damages to appellee, receiver of an underwriting company, against the corporation for the corporation's breach of an agreement to file a post-effective amendment with respect to shares issuable to the underwriting company if the underwriting was successfully completed. The corporation did not appeal the 1962 judgment. Pursuant to an action on a related matter against appellant, a former director of the corporation, appellant sought to vacate the 1962 judgment on the ground that the trial court would not have entered it if it had been aware of a release executed by the underwriting company in favor of the corporation, which was known to appellee's attorney but not to the corporation's. The trial court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the strong policy in favor of the finality of judgments justified the trial court's refusal to grant appellant's motion.
- The court ruled that since appellant had not initiated an independent action for fraud inter partes, he could only prevail upon a showing that appellee's attorney practiced fraud upon the trial court by not disclosing the release.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, denying appellant former director's motion to vacate a 1962 judgment in favor of appellee receiver. The court ruled that since appellant had not initiated an independent action for fraud inter partes, he could only prevail upon a showing that appellee's attorney practiced fraud upon the trial court by not disclosing the release.
Recommended Supplements for Civil Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment