From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hart v. Mead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1918
186 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Opinion

December, 1918.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, except as to the allegation of damage in paragraph 10. The necessary allegations of a complaint in an action of this character are: First, the cause of action in favor of the corporation, which should be stated in the same manner and with the same details of facts as would be proper in case the corporation itself had brought the action; second, the facts which enable plaintiff to maintain the action in place of the corporation; that he is a stockholder therein and that the corporation itself has refused or unreasonably failed to bring the action. Ordinarily, no other allegations are necessary or material. ( Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 181 N.Y. 121, 124.) Jenks, P.J., Putnam, Blackmar, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Hart v. Mead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1918
186 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)
Case details for

Hart v. Mead

Case Details

Full title:AUSTIN H. HART, Respondent, v. WARREN S.M. MEAD, Sued as WILLIAM S.M…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1918

Citations

186 App. Div. 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1918)

Citing Cases

Hunt v. Hammel

The circumstances relied on by the appellant as proofs of fraud — such as the retention of the name of Mrs.…

Feeley v. Boyd

There was a sufficient delivery and change of possession, and the findings should be sustained. (Dubois v.…