Legal Opinion
Loew v. Interlake Iron Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 17, 1944PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
In a stockholder’s derivative action, the defendants Interlake Iron Corporation and Harry A. Arthur and Leigh Willard have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and pursuant to subdivision 3 of rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice on the ground that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.
The last branch of the motion is predicated upon section 61 of the General Corporation Law, as amended by chapter 667 of the Laws. of 1944,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. . DwyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Coane v. American Distilling Co.New York Supreme Court · 1944
- Board of Education v. RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Klum v. Clinton Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1944
3Cited by4 opinions
- Noel Associates, Inc. v. MerrillNew York Supreme Court · 1944
- Bankers Nat. Corp. v. BarrDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. H. W. E. Realty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1946
- County of Saratoga v. Saratoga Harness Racing Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1957