Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts, and the questions certified, are stated in the opinion. Before a shareholder “is permitted in his own name to institute and conduct a litigation which usually belongs to the corporation, he should show to. the satisfaction of the court that he has exhausted all the means within his reach to obtain within the corporation itself the redress of his grievances or action in conformity to his wishes.
Read the full summary
CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The facts, and the questions certified, are stated in the opinion. Before a shareholder “is permitted in his own name to institute and conduct a litigation which usually belongs to the corporation, he should show to. the satisfaction of the court that he has exhausted all the means within his reach to obtain within the corporation itself the redress of his grievances or action in conformity to his wishes. He must make an earnest, not a simulated, effort with the managing body of the corporation to induce remedial action on…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
The certificate of the court is as follows:
“This cause comes here upon appeal from a final decree of the ' Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, which directs that the defendant Delaware and Hudson Company (hereinafter called the Delaware Company) pay to the defendant the Albany and Susquehanna Railroad Company (hereinafter called the Susquehanna Company) the amount of $1,107,923.24.
“The case was fully argued and submitted on briefs.- It thereupon developed that there was a question presented whether the bill could be maintained under the ninety-fourth equity rule. That question is a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Hawes v. OaklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Dodge v. WoolseySupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Doctor v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- Ross v. BernhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Smith v. SperlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. KauffmanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1973
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.