Ranzal v. Hood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ranzal v. Hood

253 A.D. 735, 300 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5377

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 735 (Ranzal v. Hood) 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

Ranzal v. Hood, 253 A.D. 735, 300 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion of the appealing defendants, made under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiff is not a party to the voting trust agreement which she seeks to have annulled, nor is she a stockholder of the appellant corporation, whose officers she charges with misconduct and seeks to have account. Therefore, she may not maintain this representative action. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that the complaint shows plaintiff has been wronged and equity will take cognizance of her ease. (Clinton Trust Co. v. 142-144 Joralemon Street Corp., 237 App. Div. 789.)

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

Order denying motion of the appealing defendants, made under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiff is not a party to the voting trust agreement which she seeks to have annulled, nor is she a stockholder of the appellant corporation, whose officers she charges with misconduct and seeks to have account. Therefore, she may not maintain this representative action. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur; Davis, J., dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that the complaint shows plaintiff has been wronged and equity will take cognizance of her ease. (Clinton Trust Co. v. 142-144 Joralemon Street Corp., 237 App. Div. 789.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 735, 300 N.Y.S. 622, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranzal-v-hood-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack