Legal Opinion

Peters v. United Holding Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1931Published

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

  1. Hardt v. HeidweyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Canadian Agency, Ltd. v. Assets Realization Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  3. Dennin v. PowersNew York Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Dennin v. . FinucaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  5. Dennin v. WoodburyNew York Supreme Court · 1916

2 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