Millstein v. Arcade Cafeteria, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
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
- Gans v. Delaware Terminal Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1938
- Eshleman v. KeenanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1935