Salpeter v. Baur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salpeter v. Baur

262 A.D. 1035, 30 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 1035 (Salpeter v. Baur) 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

Salpeter v. Baur, 262 A.D. 1035, 30 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a stockholder on behalf of himself and of others similarly situated to recover as against officers and directors who diverted assets of the corporation for the personal benefit of officers of the corporation and made an overpayment for the value of stock of a corporation which was owned and controlled by one or more of its officers, and against one who acted as agent and assisted in these alleged wrongful acts, order, in so far as appealed from, denying motions to dismiss the first cause of action for insufficiency and on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Close, J., not voting.

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

In an action by a stockholder on behalf of himself and of others similarly situated to recover as against officers and directors who diverted assets of the corporation for the personal benefit of officers of the corporation and made an overpayment for the value of stock of a corporation which was owned and controlled by one or more of its officers, and against one who acted as agent and assisted in these alleged wrongful acts, order, in so far as appealed from, denying motions to dismiss the first cause of action for insufficiency and on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Close, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1035, 30 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salpeter-v-baur-nyappdiv-1941.