Legal Opinion

Millstein v. Arcade Cafeteria, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided August 8, 1938Published

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

At places in paragraphs 1, 6 and 12 of the answer averments are made to the effect that the complainant is motivated to bring this suit by a purpose to compel the individual defendants to pay him money.

In Eshleman v. Keenan, 21 Del. Ch. 116, 181 A. 655, this court held that the motive which inspired a stockholder to file a suit in his derivative right to require officers of the coropration to account for wrongs they committed against it, was immaterial as a defense to the suit. The principle of that case controls this one. See, also, Gans v. Delaware Terminal Corp., ante p. 69,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gans v. Delaware Terminal Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1938
  2. Eshleman v. KeenanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API