Legal Opinion

Sternfeld v. Toxaway Tanning Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 15, 1943PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.

This action is grounded in fraud and deceit. It is not an action for damages. The defendant corporation is organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina.

The relief sought is a declaration that a preferred stock issue of the defendant corporation be declared illegal and of no effect: that the stock certificates issued thereunder be declared null and void and cancelled; that the holders of such stock be directed to return any of such stock held by them to the defendant corporation for cancellation and that the corporation be directed to cancel the same; that the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Travis v. . Knox Terpezone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. Cohn v. Mishkoff Costello Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  2. Weiss v. RouthCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  3. Langfelder v. Universal Laboratories, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
  4. Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  5. In re Baldwinsville Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944

9 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