McKee v. Rogers
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
The first point made by the demurrants is that the bill shows that a receiver has been appointed for the corporation by the District Court of the United States for the District of New Hampshire, and therefore the complainant has no standing in this court to sue to recover in the corporation’s behalf, because the right to recover is one belonging not to the corporation but to the receiver. In answering this contention it is important to bear in mind the facts attending the appointment of the New Hampshire receiver. They are in substance as follows: A bill was filed by one Smith…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Great Western Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Sohland v. BakerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1927
- duPont v. Standard Arms Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1912
3Cited by17 opinions
- Aronson v. LewisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Levine v. SmithSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
- American International Group, Inc. v. GreenbergCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2009
- Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1988
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.