Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.

273 A.D. 755, 75 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 12, 1947·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

'Plaintiffs are not in position to question the fairness of the merger plan, either as allegedly depriving them of elements of value pertaining to their shares of stock by reason of the matters alleged in the complaints, or otherwise, after having accepted payment for their shares at the $135 provided by the plan, or in the amount arrived at by the appraisers. They could not accept the benefit of the merger plan and, at the same time, attack its validity, regardless of whether the appraisers had jurisdiction to take into account the matters alleged in the complaints in evaluating such shares. The orders dismissing the complaints and the judgments entered thereon are unanimously affirmed, with costs, without passing upon the other questions involved. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co., 273 A.D. 755, 75 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

273 A.D. 755 (Amella v. Consolidated Edison Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bronzaft v. Caporali
162 Misc. 2d 281 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Kemp v. Angel
381 A.2d 241 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1977)
Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Bade
338 N.E.2d 614 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Stauffer v. Standard Brands Inc.
178 A.2d 311 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1962)
Matter of Silverman (Hoe & Co.)
110 N.E.2d 402 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)