From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. Gardiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 25, 1944
267 App. Div. 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Summary

In Austin v. Gardiner (267 App. Div. 863) the suit was by a stockholder of a subsidiary corporation against the parent company, its officers and directors for excessive charges made by the parent company to another wholly owned subsidiary.

Summary of this case from Gottfried v. Gottfried

Opinion

February 25, 1944.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.

Present — Martin, P.J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.


In this suit brought by a stockholder for relief against a parent company and certain subsidiaries and various officers and directors of the parent company, some five claims were made. There were defects in the pleading of three of these claims. Special Term accordingly held the complaint bad in part and gave leave for the service of an amended complaint. It was also urged, however, that the Statute of Limitations was a bar to the enforcement of all five claims. Special Term declined to pass upon the question of the Statute of Limitations on the ground that a new complaint was going to be served and it would be useless to determine the applicability of the Statute to a complaint which was going to be entirely superseded.

We think that all five of the alleged claims in substance charge waste of corporate assets without gains in excess of the correlated losses to the subsidiaries. In such a situation the provision of subdivision 7 of section 49 of the Civil Practice Act applies. ( Corash v. Texas Co., 264 App. Div. 292.)

However, since the management and freight contracts seem to be continuing agreements and since the other claims may or may not have occurred within three years of the bringing of this suit, we think that the extent to which the Statute of Limitations is a partial bar should be left to the trier of the facts to determine.

The orders, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after entry of order.


Orders, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after entry of order. [See post, p. 946.]


Summaries of

Austin v. Gardiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 25, 1944
267 App. Div. 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

In Austin v. Gardiner (267 App. Div. 863) the suit was by a stockholder of a subsidiary corporation against the parent company, its officers and directors for excessive charges made by the parent company to another wholly owned subsidiary.

Summary of this case from Gottfried v. Gottfried
Case details for

Austin v. Gardiner

Case Details

Full title:CLEM C. AUSTIN, Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Stockholders of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 25, 1944

Citations

267 App. Div. 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Citing Cases

Platt Corp. v. Platt

There can be no doubt that an action based on an alleged injury to property is an action sounding in tort…

Gottfried v. Gottfried

In Corash v. Texas Co. ( 264 App. Div. 292) the action was by a stockholder of a subsidiary corporation to…