Annenberg v. ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, 274
| Decision Date | 19 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 274,Dockets 30147,305,30213.,274 |
| Citation | 360 F.2d 211 |
| Parties | Jeanette ANNENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLEGHANY CORPORATION and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co., Defendants-Appellees. Sandor SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cyrus S. EATON, Walter J. Tuohy, Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr., Clinton W. Murchison, Anita O'Keeffe Young, as Executrix of the estate of Robert R. Young, Deceased, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Bowman, Allan B. Kirby, Alleghany Corporation and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Norman Annenberg, New York City, for appellant Annenberg.
Rogers, Hoge & Hills, Sidney P. Howell, Jr., Marie V. Driscoll, New York City, for Alleghany Corporation.
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City (Carl E. Newton, James M. MacNee, III, M. Lauck Walton, New York City, of counsel), for Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
J. Milton Fainer, Sidney L. Garwin, Bertram Bronzaft, New York City, for appellant Schwartz.
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City (Carl E. Newton, M. Lauck Walton, New York City, of counsel), for appellees Eaton, Tuohy and Eaton, Jr.
Satterlee, Warfield & Stephens (Henry J. Formon, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellee Murchison.
Lord, Day & Lord, New York City (Thomas F. Daly, William E. McCurdy, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellee Young.
Before WATERMAN, MOORE and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
In No. 30213, plaintiff Schwartz appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Schwartz v. Bowman, his stockholder's derivative action against several defendants on behalf of Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., in which case motions by each of the defendants-appellees for dismissal of the complaint and for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12(b) and 56(b) F.R.Civ.P. were granted.
In No. 30147, plaintiff Annenberg, who had brought her stockholder's derivative action on behalf of Alleghany Corporation, appeals from the granting on the same day by the same court of a similar motion made in her case by defendant Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company.
The motions were disposed of together, counsel for the plaintiffs in the two actions submitting joint papers in opposition to the motions. The motions were granted as to defendants-appellees in both cases on the ground that as to them the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the two complaints.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.
...the absence of the United States. In Schwartz v. Bowman, 244 F.Supp. 51, 65-69 (S.D.N.Y.1965), aff'd sub nom. Annenberg v. Alleghany Corp., 360 F.2d 211 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 230, 17 L.Ed.2d 145 (1966), the court held an ICC order could not be attacked......
-
NATIONAL SMALL SHIP. TRAF. CONF., INC. v. United States
...412 U.S. 934, 93 S.Ct. 2774, 37 L. Ed.2d 393 (1973); Schwartz v. Bowman, 244 F.Supp. 51 (S.D.N.Y.1965), aff'd on the opinion below, 360 F.2d 211 (1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 921, 87 S. Ct. 230, 17 L.Ed.2d 145 (1966); United States v. Railway Express Agency, 101 F.Supp. 1008 (D.Del.1951). ......
-
BF Goodrich Company v. Northwest Industries, Inc.
...713, 21 L.Ed.2d 705; Schwartz v. Bowman, 244 F.Supp. 51 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (extensive citations at 67), aff'd. sub nom. Annenberg v. Allegheny Corp., 360 F.2d 211 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 921, 87 S.St. 230, 17 L.Ed.2d Although the Commission's order is not precisely worded, it is ......
-
Western Union Intern., Inc. v. Western Union Tel. Co.
... ... clause of a contract entered into between defendant and a corporation not a party to this action; (2) an injunction prohibiting defendant from ... ...