Peters v. United Holding Corp.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, Edmund H., J.. Each of the above-captioned actions is in equity for rescission of a contract involving the exchange of certain securities. The plaintiffs allege the contracts were induced by fraud. The feature of the complaints with which we are particularly *763cod cerned upon this motion is that the time of the discovery of the alleged fraud is not stated.
The defendants move to make the complaints more definite and certain ■ — go show the time when, and the manner how, the plaintiffs discovered the alleged falsity of the representations.
In preparing to defend these actions there is…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hardt v. HeidweyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Canadian Agency, Ltd. v. Assets Realization Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Dennin v. PowersNew York Supreme Court · 1916
- Dennin v. . FinucaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Dennin v. WoodburyNew York Supreme Court · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.