Wood v. Utter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wood v. Utter

248 A.D. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8137

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 941 (Wood v. Utter) 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

Wood v. Utter, 248 A.D. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of March 13, 1935, requiring plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; order of March 13, 1935, modifying plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial modified and as modified affirmed, without costs; order of May 6, 1935, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to serve reply within ten days upon payment of the costs of the motion and ten dollars costs of this appeal. All concur. (One order requires plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars; the second order modifies plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial; the third order strikes out plaintiff’s reply as insufficient in law. The action is a derivative action by a stockholder to obtain an accounting for moneys misappropriated.) Present —Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgeomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

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

Order of March 13, 1935, requiring plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; order of March 13, 1935, modifying plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial modified and as modified affirmed, without costs; order of May 6, 1935, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to serve reply within ten days upon payment of the costs of the motion and ten dollars costs of this appeal. All concur. (One order requires plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars; the second order modifies plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial; the third order strikes out plaintiff’s reply as insufficient in law. The action is a derivative action by a stockholder to obtain an accounting for moneys misappropriated.) Present —Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgeomb, Thompson and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 941, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-utter-nyappdiv-1936.