Legal Opinion

Ainscow v. Sanitary Co. of America

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided July 5, 1935PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor :

The complainant sues in his derivative right as a stockholder of Sanitary Company of America. The wrong, if any, against which he complains is one that was done to the corporation. Any relief which may be afforded is in its behalf and inures to its benefit. The complainant as a stockholder is interested in the alleged wrong and in the relief only in an indirect and derivative sense. The nature of a derivative suit was commented on in Cantor, et al., v. Sachs, et al., 18 Del. Ch. 359, 162 A. 73. In a case of that type a stockholder has no right to file a bill in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appt. v. Wirt AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. Sohland v. BakerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1927
  3. Cantor v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
  4. Lowman v. Harvey R. Pierce Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Wood v. Union Gospel Church Building Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  2. Quadrant Structured Products Company, Ltd. v. VertinCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2014
  3. Elster v. American Airlines, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953
  4. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. PyottCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2012
  5. Maldonado v. FlynnCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1980

10 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