Legal Opinion
German American Coffee Co. v. Diehl
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1914PublishedCited by 20 opinions
Demurrers to complaint.
1Opinion of the CourtPage, J.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws, of the state of New Jersey, but duly authorized to do business in this state and having its main business office and transacting most of its business in the city of New York. The defendant, Clarence A. Diehl, it is alleged in the complaint has been a duly elected and qualified director of the plaintiff and its treasurer from about July 6, 1903, continuously until January 22, 1913. The action is brought pursuant to section 91-a of the General Corporation Law (Laws of 1913, chap. 633), to compel the defendant to account for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- O'Brien v. . FitzgeraldNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- People v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Miller v. . QuincyNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Higgins v. TefftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Buckley v. StansfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Upson v. OtisCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Ripley v. International Railways of Central AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Hausman v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Sherwood v. HolbrookAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.