McDonnell v. Bell Container Corp.

Second Circuit

McDonnell v. Bell Container Corp.

310 F.2d 880

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1962

DocketNo. 147, Docket 27763

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 310 F.2d 880 (McDonnell v. Bell Container Corp.) 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

McDonnell v. Bell Container Corp., 310 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a stockholder’s derivative action seeking damages in behalf of Doeskin Products, Inc., resulting from a series of schemes to victimize it, which this court once before characterized as “a bold and outrageous corporate swindle,” see McDonnell v. Tabah, 2 Cir., 297 F.2d 731, 732. We are now asked to hold that insufficient evidence existed to support Judge-Palmieri’s findings of participation by Bell Container Corporation in fraudulent transactions to supply containers and by Harold J. Simon in fraudulent transactions to supply trucking services to the milked corporation. The judge’s extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law closely considered whether the various dealings of these two defendants with persons in fiduciary ca[881]*881pacities to Doeskin were in furtherance of bona fide business purposes and decided they were not. Judge Palmieri’s findings were justified by the evidence.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a stockholder’s derivative action seeking damages in behalf of Doeskin Products, Inc., resulting from a series of schemes to victimize it, which this court once before characterized as “a bold and outrageous corporate swindle,” see McDonnell v. Tabah, 2 Cir., 297 F.2d 731, 732. We are now asked to hold that insufficient evidence existed to support Judge-Palmieri’s findings of participation by Bell Container Corporation in fraudulent transactions to supply containers and by Harold J. Simon in fraudulent transactions to supply trucking services to the milked corporation. The judge’s extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law closely considered whether the various dealings of these two defendants with persons in fiduciary ca[881]*881pacities to Doeskin were in furtherance of bona fide business purposes and decided they were not. Judge Palmieri’s findings were justified by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonnell-v-bell-container-corp-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack