Miesse v. Seiberling Rubber Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
In order to grant any part of the relief demanded in the complaint, it would be necessary to assume jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the defendant corporation. (Sauerbrunn v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 N. Y. 363; Bickart v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., 243 App. Div. 72.) The plaintiff appears to recognize that this may not be done to the extent that the complaint demands a judgment which would nullify the reorganization of the defendant in the State of Delaware where it is incorporated. We think it is equally true to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to require the defendant to pay…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sauerbrunn v. . Hartford Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Bickart v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
3Cited by4 opinions
- Weiss v. RouthCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Nothiger v. Corroon & Reynolds Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
- Wagner v. BraunsbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- O'Brien v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965