Legal Opinion

Maas v. Sullivan

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1924PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Proskauer, J.:

Plaintiffs bring a representative action on behalf of themselves and all other bondholders of the Interborough-Metropolitan Company similarly situated. Ernestine Mauzer, also a bondholder, moves to intervene as a party plaintiff. Defendants urge that she is not similarly situated with the plaintiffs. All were originally holders of the same kind of bonds. Plaintiffs, however, surrendered their bonds to a reorganization committee and, according to the defendants’ claim, thus changed their status. The intervener did not sign the reorganization agreement. The signature of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brinckerhoff v. . BostwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  2. MacArdell v. OlcottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Overfield v. Pennroad CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1944
  2. Bookman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
  3. Blaustein v. Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co.New York Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Kawahara v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Coane v. American Distilling Co.New York Supreme Court · 1944

2 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