Legal Opinion

Burnham v. Brush

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1945PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.

There appears to be no reason for holding up the decision on this motion any longer. The motion is one brought in a derivative stockholders’ action to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs were not stockholders at the time of the transaction of which they complain. Such a requirement was written into the amendment of section 61 of the General Corporation Law (L. 1944, ch. 667), which by its terms took effect April 9, 1944. The question presented is whether this amendment "is retroactive in character. In November, 1944, in Noel Associates v. Merrill (184 Misc. 646, 650-654)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shielcrawt v. MoffettNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
  2. Hastings v. Byllesby Co. (Granbery)New York Court of Appeals · 1944
  3. Noel Associates, Inc. v. MerrillNew York Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Supreme Court · 1945
  2. White v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API