256 N.Y. 102, Cohn v. Mishkoff-Costlow Co.
|Citation:||256 N.Y. 102|
|Party Name:||Cohn v. Mishkoff-Costlow Co.|
|Case Date:||March 24, 1931|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued February 9, 1931.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Henry Hofheimer, Milton Mansbach and Louis J. Paley for appellant. The cause of action set forth in the complaint cannot be maintained in this State as the court will not take jurisdiction of an action requiring it to interfere in the internal management of a foreign corporation or to control the judgment and discretion of its board of directors. ( Sauerbrunn v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 N.Y. 363; People v. Brotherhood P. D. P. A., 218 N.Y. 115; Travis v. Knox, 215 N.Y. 259; Muck v. Hitchcock, 212 N.Y. 283; Southworth v. Morgan, 205 N.Y. 293; Knickerbocker Trust v. Iselin, 185 N.Y. 54; Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N.Y. 9; De Raismes v. U.S. Lithograph, 161 A.D. 781; Matter of Rappleye, 43 A.D. 84; Lewisohn v. Anaconda Copper, 26 Misc. 613; Eberhard v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 210 F. 520; Maguire v. Mortgage Co., 203 F. 858; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Newman, 187 F. 573; Sims v. United Wireless Tel. Co., 179 F. 540; Butler v. Standard Milk Flour Co., 146 A.D. 735.)
Frank E. Nowve and Philip I. Schick for respondents. Interference in the internal affairs of a foreign corporation is not involved in the present suit. ( Sauerbrunn v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 220 N.Y. 363; People v. Brotherhood P. D. P. A., 218 N.Y. 115; Muck v. Hitchcock, 212 N.Y. 283; Southworth v. Morgan, 205 N.Y. 293; Marshal v. Sherman, 148 N.Y. 9; De Raismes v. U.S. Lithograph, 161 A.D. 84; Matter of Rappleye, 43 A.D. 84; Travis v. Knox, 215 N.Y. 259; Eberhard v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 210 F. 520; Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Newman, 187 F. 573; Blythe Co. v. Blythe, 172 U.S. 644; Bach v. Hunt, 193 U.S. 523; Sims v. United Wireless Telegraph, 179 F. 540; Hogue v. American Steel Foundries Co., 247 Penn. St. 62.)
The action is brought by a stockholder against the defendant, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, demanding judgment that defendant either redeem shares of its stock at par value with accumulated interest or in the alternative declare a dividend out of its...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP