Legal Opinion

Bingham v. Ditzler

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 30, 1943No. Gen. No. 42,323PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hebei

This a derivative action instituted by Mary S. Bingham, the plaintiff, as á minority stockholder of The Chicago Roller Company to compel the restoration to the company of moneys unlawfully appropriated by its officers and directors, who refused to take action after demand made.

As a result of the institution and prosecution of the suit, the individual defendants H. L. Ditzler, Millard F. Bingham, Jr. and H. A. Bresemann, officers and directors of the company, have been finally decreed to repay to the defendant, The Chicago Roller Company, the sum of $3,600, which was unlawfully appropriated…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. McCourt v. Singers-BiggerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
  4. Henry G. Davis & Co. v. GemmellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1891
  5. Beaudette v. GrahamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. De Fontaine v. PassalinoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991
  2. Caparos v. MortonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2006
  3. Ross v. 311 North Central Avenue Building Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1970
  4. Abreu v. Unica Industrial Sales, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1991
  5. Romanik v. Lurie Home Supply Center, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1982

3 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