TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Katz v. R. Hoe & Co.

Nathan Katz, Individually and Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Common Stockholders of R. Hoe & Co., Inc., Similarly Situated v. R. Hoe & Co., Inc., and Alfred D. Martin

Katz v. R. Hoe & Co., 278 A.D. 766 (1951)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 25, 1951
Citations
278 A.D. 766104 N.Y.S.2d 14

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This action by a holder of common stock of a corporation claiming to sue on behalf of himself and all other common stockholders, was instituted primarily for an injunction to restrain a corporate consolidation. Months before the appeal was heard, the consolidation had been fully consummated and the stock of the corporation reissued in accordance therewith, after plenary trial in which Special Term had entered judgment in defendants’ favor dismissing the complaint on the merits.

Relief was also sought on the ground of fraud but the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that there was no fraud.

The action is in equity. As a result of the consummated consolidation, rights have accrued to third parties; a balancing of equities weighs in favor of such third parties and the benefit to the corporation as opposed to plaintiff, one stockholder, who has instituted this action, joined only by defendant Martin, another common stockholder and also a director. Great numbers of the class plaintiff presumes to represent have exchanged their shares in accordance with the executed and completed plan of consolidation or had previously petitioned for an appraisal of their stockholdings.

Under the state of facts disclosed, the judgment in, favor of defendants-respondents dismissing the complaint and cross complaint, and the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, should be affirmed.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment in favor of defendants-respondents dismissing the complaint and cross complaint, and the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs. [199 Mise. 459.]

How later courts describe this case

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

1953: 11962: 11963: 11980: 119532026peak 1953 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Andrews v. Precision Apparatus, Inc.217 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)
  2. Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co.75 A.D.2d 598 (1980)
  3. In re Silverman282 A.D. 252 (1953)
  4. Williams v. Bartell34 Misc. 2d 552 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)

Most recent

  1. Town of Oyster Bay v. New York Telephone Co.75 A.D.2d 598 (1980)
  2. Andrews v. Precision Apparatus, Inc.217 F. Supp. 679 (S.D.N.Y. 1963)
  3. Williams v. Bartell34 Misc. 2d 552 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
  4. In re Silverman282 A.D. 252 (1953)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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