TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala

HENIS Et Al. v. COMPANIA AGRICOLA DE GUATEMALA Et Al.

Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala, 210 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 2, 1954
Docket
No. 11229
Judges
Maris, Kalodner, Staley
Citations
210 F.2d 9501954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2515

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint in a stockholders’ derivative action brought by them on behalf of defendant International Railways of Central America against defendant Compañía Agrícola de Guatemala. In their complaint plaintiffs allege that, they purchased their shares in International Railways in the latter part of 1951, whereas the transactions which they seek to have set aside and cancelled were entered into between Compañía Agrícola and International Railways in 1936 and shortly thereafter. The district court dismissed the complaint because, inter alia, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b), 28 U.S.C.» that they should have been shareholders of International Railways at the time of the transactions of which they complain. The plaintiffs argue that the complaint alleges wrongs which continued after their acquisitions of shares and that Rule 23(b) is thereby satisfied. We do not agree. On the contrary we are in full accord with the views upon this subject expressed by Chief Judge Leahy of the district court in his opinion dismissing the complaint, 116 F.Supp. 223, 228-230 , and we need add nothing thereto. Since the complaint was properly dismissed because it did not comply with Rule 23(b) we do not consider the applicability of the Delaware statute of limitations, the other ground upon which the district court based its action.

The order of the district court will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1955: 21956: 21957: 31959: 11960: 21964: 11967: 11968: 21969: 11970: 11971: 11972: 11973: 11975: 11983: 12021: 119552026peak 1957 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. DeHaas v. Empire Petroleum Company286 F. Supp. 809 (D. Colo. 1968)
  2. Tobacco & Allied Stocks, Inc. v. Transamerica Corp.143 F. Supp. 323 (D. Del. 1956)
  3. Ripley v. International Railways of Central America171 N.E.2d 443 (N.Y. 1960)
  4. Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.337 F. Supp. 834 (D.N.J. 1972)
  5. Freedman v. Beneficial Corp.406 F. Supp. 917 (D. Del. 1975)
  6. John J. & Warren H. Graham v. Triangle Publications, Inc.233 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Pa. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Moore v. J.W. Marriott, Jr.No. 8:19-cv-00830 (D. Maryland June 11, 2021)
  2. Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco Inc.560 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Del. 1983)
  3. Freedman v. Beneficial Corp.406 F. Supp. 917 (D. Del. 1975)
  4. Valle v. North Jersey Auto. Club310 A.2d 518 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973)
  5. Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.337 F. Supp. 834 (D.N.J. 1972)
  6. Supermarket Films, Inc. v. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.321 F. Supp. 855 (W.D. Pa. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Henis v. Compania Agricola De Guatemala, 116 F. Supp. 223 (D. Del. 1953) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list