Legal Opinion · Dissent

Auer v. Dressel

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 12, 1954Published

1DissentVan Voorhis, J.

This proceeding has been instituted under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to compel, by way of mandamus, the president of B. Hoe & Co., Inc., to call a special meeting of the class A stockholders to act upon four enumerated proposals. ‘ ‘ In the case of special meetings, the notice must state the business to be transacted, and no other business than that stated can be transacted.” (5 Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations. [Perm, ed.], § 2009.) The president of Hoe was justified in declining to call a class A stockholders ’ meeting pursuant to the demand of these shareholders, regardless of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Matter of Picone v. Comr. of LicensesNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Bachman v. . HarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  3. People Ex Rel. Empire City Trotting Club v. State Racing CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
  4. People Ex Rel. Manice v. . PowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  5. Schulman v. Louis Dejonge & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API