| N.Y. App. Div. | Jan 15, 1917
— Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Held, there is a failure of proof that the person served with notice under the Stock Corporation Law (§ 69) was the treasurer or financial officer of the corporation at the time of service of the notice. 2. The proof shows that the plaintiff was not a stockholder in the corporation. (See Hapgoods v. Lusch, No. 1, 123 A.D. 23" date_filed="1907-12-06" court="N.Y. App. Div." case_name="Hapgoods v. Lusch">123 App. Div. 23.) All concurred.