Lloyd v. H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lloyd v. H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc.

258 A.D. 954, 17 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8398

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The petitioner previously instituted a derivative stockholder’s action in which he moved for discovery of the corporate books and was granted such examination, which was limited in, scope [955]*955because of his alleged position as a competitor in business of the company. Under the circumstances, an order in the nature of mandamus for a further inspection of the books by petitioner as a stockholder was improperly granted. Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

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

The petitioner previously instituted a derivative stockholder’s action in which he moved for discovery of the corporate books and was granted such examination, which was limited in, scope [955]*955because of his alleged position as a competitor in business of the company. Under the circumstances, an order in the nature of mandamus for a further inspection of the books by petitioner as a stockholder was improperly granted. Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Lloyd v. H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc., 258 A.D. 954, 17 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

258 A.D. 954 (Lloyd v. H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related