Blum v. . Whitney
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23, 1906, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining demurrers to the complaint. The following question was certified, “ Does the third amended oomplaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ” The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23, 1906, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term sustaining demurrers to the complaint. The following question was certified, “ Does the third amended oomplaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ” The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The right of action is primarily in the corporation. (2 Thomp. on Corp. 1613, § 2152; Sleyden v. Seip Coal Co., 25 Mo. App. 439; Dykman v.…
1Opinion of the CourtEdward T. Bartlett, J.
The plaintiff alleges in his third amended complaint that he is a stockholder of the Distilling Company of America, hereafter called the corporation, and brings this action as such, against the individual defendants and the Distilling Company of America, for the reason that the said corporation has refused and neglected and still refuses and neglects to do so. The plaintiff, so acting on behalf of the corporation, seeks to recover alleged unlawful secret profits retained by the individual defendants in certain transactions, set forth in detail, to the damage of the corporation.
It appears that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- King v. . BarnesNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Seymour v. Spring Forest Cemetery Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Barr v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Swift v. Smith, Dixon & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1886
- Tompkins v. Sperry, Jones & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. LewisohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Spira v. NickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1995
- Mason v. CarrothersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1909
- Public Service Commission v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1922
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.