《刺破公司面试案例英文》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《刺破公司面试案例英文（2页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、 Bartle v. Home Owers Coop.Froessel , Judge.Plaintiff,as trustee in bankruptcy of Westerlea Builders,Inc.,has by means of this litigation attempted to hold defendant liable for the contract debts of Westerlea, defendant s wholly owend subsidiary. Defendant ,as a co-operative corporation composed mos
2、tly of veterans ,was organized in July, 1947,for the purpose of providing low cost housing for its members.Unable to secure a contractor to undertake construction of the housing planned,Westerlea was organized for that purpose on June 5,1948.With building costs running considerably higher than antic
3、ipated,Westerlea,as it proceeded with construction on some 26 houses,found itself in a difficult financial situation. On January 24,1949,the creditors, pursuant to an extension agreement, took over the construction responsibilities.Nearly four years later,in october,1952,Westerlea was adjudicated a
4、bankrupt. Meanwhile,defendant had contributed to Westerlea not only its original capital of $25,000 but additional sums amounting to $25,639.38.Plaintiffs principal contention on this appeal is that the courts below erred in refusing to “pierce the corporate veil”of Westerleas existence ,as subordin
5、ate grounds for recovery he urged that the defendant equitably pledged its assets toward the satisfaction of the debts of the bankrupts creditors,and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should apply.The trial court made detailed fingdings of fact which have been unanimously affirmed by the appell
6、ate division,285 app.div.1113,140 n. y.s. 2d 512,which are clearly supported by the evidence ,and by which we are bound .It found that while the defendant,as owner of the stock of Westerlea,controlled its affairs,the outward indicia of these two separate corporations was at all times maintained duri
7、ng the period in which the creditors extended credit ; that the creditors were in no wise misled;that there was no fraud,and that the defendant performed no act causing injury to the creditors of Westerlea by depletion of assets or otherwise.The trial court also held that the creditors were estopple
8、d by the extension agreement from disputing the separate corporate identities.We agree with the courts below. The law permits the incorporation of a business for the very purpose of escaping personal liability .Gernerally speaking ,the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil”is invoked “to prevent
9、fraud or to achieve equity”, International Aircraft Trading Co.v.Manufacturers Trust Co.,297 n.y.285,292,79 n. e.2d 249,252. But in the instant case there has been neither fraud,misrepresentation nor illegality. Defendants purpose in placing its construction operation into a sparate corporation was
10、clearly within the limits of our public policy.The judgment appealed from should be affirmed,without costs.Van voorhis ,judge (dissenting).The judgment of the appellate division should be reversed on the law ,as it seems to me ,and plaintiff should have judgment declaring defendant to be liable for
11、the debts of the bankrupt,Westerlea Builders,Inc.,and that defendant holds its real property subject to the claims of creditors of Westerlea. Not only is Westerlea a wholly owened subsidiary of defendant home owners,having the same directors and management ,but also and of primacy importance ,busine
12、ss was done on such a basis that Westerlea could not make a profit. Home owners owned a residential subdivision,Westerlea was organized as a building corporation to erect homes for stockholders of home owners upon lots in this tract. Home owners arranged with Westerlea for the construction of houses
13、 and then would sell the lots on which such houses had been erecter to home owners stockholders-at prices fixed by home owners price policy commmittee in such amounts as to make no allowance for profit by Westerlea .the object was to benefit home owners stock holders by enabling them to obtain their
14、 houses at cost, with no builders profit.The consequence is that described by Latty,subsidiaries and affiliated corporations at pages 138-139:“the subsidiaries had,to begin with ,noting ,made nothing,and could only end up with noting .It is not surpring that the parent was held liable in each case .
15、” and again: “this set up is often ,though not necessarily ,found in combination with a scheme whereby the corporation cannot possibly make profits (or can at the most make only nominal profits),and whereby all the net income in the course of the corporation s business is drained off as operating ch
16、arges of one sort or another. The presence of this additional factor should remove any doubt that may remain as to the right of the creditor of the corporation not to be limited to the corporate assets for the satisfaction of his debt .”In the present instance, Westerlea was organized with a small capital supplied by home owners,which soon became exhausted.Thereafter,it had no funds and could acquire none over and beyond the actual cost of the houses which it was building f
