刺破公司面试案例英文.docVIP

?Bartle v. Home Owers Coop. Froessel , Judge.　　 Plaintiff,as trustee in bankruptcy of Westerlea uilders,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 mostly 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 anticipated,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 bankrupt. Meanwhile,defendant had contributed to Westerlea not only its original capital of $25,000 but additional sums amounting to $25,639.38.　　 Plaintiff’s principal contention on this appeal is that the courts below erred in refusing to “pierce the corporate veil”of Westerlea’s existence ,as subordinate grounds for recovery he urged that the defendant equitably pledged its assets toward the satisfaction of the debts of the bankrupt’s 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 appellate 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 during 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