Darraugh v. Carrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darraugh v. Carrington

264 A.D. 126, 34 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 126 (Darraugh v. Carrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darraugh v. Carrington, 264 A.D. 126, 34 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Townley, J.

This is a stockholders’ action brought against numerous directors of the Chase National Bank, the Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., the International Paper Company and others. The complaint in effect charges that there was a conspiracy to dissipate the assets of the Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. The only charge which involves the appellant, International Paper Company, is contained in the third cause of action. The claim made therein is that an officer and director common to the Chase National Bank and the International Paper [127]*127Company exercised his personal influence to cause the Hearst Publications, Inc., not to use its commanding position in the paper market to keep down the price of paper, but on the contrary to cause it to consent to paying a marked increase in paper rates established by the International Paper Company and others. There is no allegation that the appellant, International Paper Company, had any knowledge of the action of its director or was a party to any conspiracy, or that it had any contractual relation with Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., which was breached in any way. As the coinplaint stands, we find no breach of dutyl pleaded against the appellant.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted as prayed for in the notice of motion, with leave to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

Martin, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

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

Townley, J.

This is a stockholders’ action brought against numerous directors of the Chase National Bank, the Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., the International Paper Company and others. The complaint in effect charges that there was a conspiracy to dissipate the assets of the Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc. The only charge which involves the appellant, International Paper Company, is contained in the third cause of action. The claim made therein is that an officer and director common to the Chase National Bank and the International Paper [127]*127Company exercised his personal influence to cause the Hearst Publications, Inc., not to use its commanding position in the paper market to keep down the price of paper, but on the contrary to cause it to consent to paying a marked increase in paper rates established by the International Paper Company and others. There is no allegation that the appellant, International Paper Company, had any knowledge of the action of its director or was a party to any conspiracy, or that it had any contractual relation with Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., which was breached in any way. As the coinplaint stands, we find no breach of dutyl pleaded against the appellant.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted as prayed for in the notice of motion, with leave to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

Martin, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of order, on payment of said costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 126, 34 N.Y.S.2d 742, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darraugh-v-carrington-nyappdiv-1942.