Legal Opinion
Chance v. Guaranty Trust Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 29, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSteinbrink, J.
The defendant Atterbury moves for judgment dismissing the third, fourth and sixth causes of action pleaded herein on the ground that they are barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 48, subd. 3, prior to its amendment by chap. 558 of the Laws of 1936). This is a stockholder’s derivative action, the plaintiffs suing in the right of R. Hoe & Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Hoe Company, as distinguished from its predecessor, hereinafter referred to as the old Hoe Company.
Under the third cause of action the following, in substance, is alleged: A bankers’ group,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Brinckerhoff v. . BostwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Potter v. WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Matthews v. . MatthewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- In re SebringAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Michelsen v. PenneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Schusterman v. C & F Caterers, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1948
- Hewitt v. MaassNew York Supreme Court · 1964
- Ticknor v. TicknorNew York Supreme Court · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.