Marks v. Grassmuck

Second Circuit

Marks v. Grassmuck

387 F.2d 948

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 1967

DocketNos. 127-128, Dockets 31572-31573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 948 (Marks v. Grassmuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marks v. Grassmuck, 387 F.2d 948 (2d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Evelyn Marks, who, as Executrix of her deceased father’s estate, holds shares of stock in Raljoed Realty Co., Inc. and Park Towers Corp., appeals from the order of Judge Palmieri dismissing her petition to review the order of Referee Babitt, dismissing petitions filed by her “on. behalf of” those New York Corporations to have each of them adjudicated voluntary bankrupts. We affirm the dismissal order below.

The Boards of Directors of the corporations conferred no authority upon appellant to prepare and file the petitions, and the Referee acted properly in dismissing and in vacating any orders made in proceedings thereon prior to the dismissal orders.

We need not enlarge upon the discussions contained in the opinions below which set forth the applicable law that a stockholder of a New York corporation who does not act by authority of the corporation’s directors may not file a petition in bankruptcy for the corporation, 277 F.Supp. 225.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Evelyn Marks, who, as Executrix of her deceased father’s estate, holds shares of stock in Raljoed Realty Co., Inc. and Park Towers Corp., appeals from the order of Judge Palmieri dismissing her petition to review the order of Referee Babitt, dismissing petitions filed by her “on. behalf of” those New York Corporations to have each of them adjudicated voluntary bankrupts. We affirm the dismissal order below.

The Boards of Directors of the corporations conferred no authority upon appellant to prepare and file the petitions, and the Referee acted properly in dismissing and in vacating any orders made in proceedings thereon prior to the dismissal orders.

We need not enlarge upon the discussions contained in the opinions below which set forth the applicable law that a stockholder of a New York corporation who does not act by authority of the corporation’s directors may not file a petition in bankruptcy for the corporation, 277 F.Supp. 225.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-grassmuck-ca2-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack