Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala

210 F.2d 950, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 1954
Docket11229
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 210 F.2d 950 (Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala, 210 F.2d 950, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515 (3d Cir. 1954).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint in a stockholders’ derivative action brought by them on behalf of defendant International Railways of Central America against defendant Compañía Agrícola de Guatemala. In their complaint plaintiffs allege that, they purchased their shares in International Railways in the latter part of 1951, whereas the transactions which they seek to have set aside and cancelled were entered into between Compañía Agrícola and International Railways in 1936 and shortly thereafter. The district court dismissed the complaint because, inter alia, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b), 28 U.S.C.» that they should have been shareholders of International Railways at the time of the transactions of which they complain. The plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges wrongs which continued after their acquisitions of shares and that Rule 23(b) is thereby satisfied. We do not agree. On the contrary we are in full accord with the views upon this subject expressed by Chief Judge Leahy of the district court in his opinion dismissing the complaint, 116 F.Supp. 223, 228-230, and we need add nothing thereto. Since the complaint was properly dismissed because it did not comply with Rule 23(b) we do not consider the applicability of the Delaware statute of limitations, the other ground upon which the district court based its action.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

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

Related

Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco Inc.
560 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Delaware, 1983)
Freedman v. Beneficial Corp.
406 F. Supp. 917 (D. Delaware, 1975)
Valle v. North Jersey Auto. Club
310 A.2d 518 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1973)
Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.
337 F. Supp. 834 (D. New Jersey, 1972)
Supermarket Films, Inc. v. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.
321 F. Supp. 855 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
NW Controls, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corporation
317 F. Supp. 698 (D. Delaware, 1970)
Lawson v. Baltimore Paint and Chemical Corporation
298 F. Supp. 373 (D. Maryland, 1969)
DeHaas v. Empire Petroleum Company
286 F. Supp. 809 (D. Colorado, 1968)
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Daly-Herring Co.
294 F. Supp. 754 (E.D. North Carolina, 1968)
Goldie v. Yaker
432 P.2d 841 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1967)
John J. & Warren H. Graham v. Triangle Publications, Inc.
233 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1964)
Ripley v. International Railways of Central America
171 N.E.2d 443 (New York Court of Appeals, 1960)
Lunn v. United Aircraft Corp.
182 F. Supp. 12 (D. Delaware, 1960)
Ripley v. International Railways of Central America
8 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Fein v. Security Banknote Company
157 F. Supp. 146 (S.D. New York, 1957)
Benton v. Glenn McCarthy, Inc.
154 F. Supp. 670 (D. Delaware, 1957)
California Oil Co. v. Travaline
147 F. Supp. 832 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)
Karol Weinhaus v. Willis Gale
237 F.2d 197 (Seventh Circuit, 1956)
Tobacco & Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp.
143 F. Supp. 323 (D. Delaware, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
210 F.2d 950, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henis-v-compania-agricola-de-guatemala-ca3-1954.