Alexander v. Petty
| Court | Court of Chancery of Delaware |
| Writing for the Court | SEITZ |
| Citation | 108 A.2d 575,35 Del.Ch. 5 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1954 |
| Parties | Robert L. ALEXANDER, Maxwell L. Grossman, George Freedman, Helen M. Bertram and Joseph Raskin, Plaintiffs, v. Dennis H. PETTY, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M. Highley, John W. Scott, Charles Sturm and Capitol Hill Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. Maxwell L. GROSSMAN, Helen M. Bertram, Joseph Raskin, Leo Lippman and Robert L. Alexander, Plaintiffs, v. Dennis H. PETTY, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M. Highley, John W. Scott, Charles Sturm and Sooner State Oil Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. Joseph RASKIN, Robert L. Alexander, Leo Lippman and George Freedman, Plaintiffs, v. Jay D. PETTY, Dennis H. Petty, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M. Highley, John W. Scott and Central Oklahoma Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants. |
Page 575
Helen M. Bertram and Joseph Raskin, Plaintiffs,
v.
Dennis H. PETTY, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M. Highley, John W.
Scott, Charles Sturm and Capitol Hill Oil
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
Maxwell L. GROSSMAN, Helen M. Bertram, Joseph Raskin, Leo
Lippman and Robert L. Alexander, Plaintiffs,
v.
Dennis H. PETTY, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M. Highley, John W.
Scott, Charles Sturm and Sooner State Oil Co.,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
Joseph RASKIN, Robert L. Alexander, Leo Lippman and George
Freedman, Plaintiffs,
v.
Jay D. PETTY, Dennis H. Petty, Gene M. Briggs, Jack M.
Highley, John W. Scott and Central Oklahoma Oil
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
Page 576
[35 Del.Ch. 6] George T. Coulson of Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, for plaintiffs.
William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, for defendants.
SEITZ, Chancellor.
This is the decision on the motion of plaintiffs to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. While there are three cases and several plaintiffs and defendants, it is agreed that the problem presented is common to all and it will be so treated by the court.
The original complaints charge in substance that the individual defendants as officers and directors of defendant corporations conspired[35 Del.Ch. 7] to and did in fact dominate and control defendant corporations for their personal benefit and also wrongfully diverted to themselves certain corporate opportunities. The answers of defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and by way of counterclaim allege that plaintiffs have unlawfully conspired to institute these actions for the purpose of preventing defendant corporations from securing any underwriter other than one Ivan Israel to market issues of the common stock of defendant corporations. This allegedly would give Israel the opportunity to obtain commissions and favorable subscription agreements for stocks or warrants to be issued by defendant corporation to their underwriters as part of a public offering. Defendants' counterclaim alleges further that the result of the conspiracy is to prevent defendant corporations from obtaining working capital with resultant suspension of operations and damage to the corporate defendants in their business and reputation and damage to individuals in their business and personal reputations and to force defendants to incur expenses in defending these actions.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on two grounds:
(1) failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted
(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Daniel Intern. Corp., No. 65529
...on the Law of Torts 870-71, 882 (1984). See also Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187, 8 OTTO 187, 25 L.Ed. 116 (1878), Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575, 577 (1954); Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 371 Pa. 308, 89 A.2d 809, 810 (1952); Penton v. Canning, 57 Wyo. 390, 118 P.2d 1002......
-
In re B & L Oil Co., Bankruptcy No. 82 B 4065 Mc
...favorably to a defendant, a claim for malicious prosecution is not a "matured claim" giving rise to a cause of action. Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575 In In re Rawson, 40 B.R. 167 (Bankr.N. D.Oh.1984), the trustee brought an action against various parties who had agreed to pu......
-
United States v. Levering, Civ. A. No. 77-142.
...not be interposed in the very proceeding that is the basis of the claim. Ivey v. Daus, 17 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575 (1954); Prosser, supra, at 853; Note, 58 Yale L.J. 490 (1949); 54 C.J.S. Malicious Prosecution § 54 (1948). Since this proceedi......
-
Babb v. Superior Court, S.F. 22761
...(Luckett v. Cohen (S.D.N.Y.1956) 169 F.Supp. 808, 810; Ivey v. Daus (S.D.N.Y.1955) 17 F.R.D. 319, 323; Alexander v. Petty (1954), 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575, 577; Niedringhaus v. Zucker (Mo.1948) 208 S.W.2d 211, 212; Manufacturers & Jobbers Finance Corp. v. Lane, Supra, 221 N.C. 189, 19 S.E......
-
Sanders v. Daniel Intern. Corp., 65529
...on the Law of Torts 870-71, 882 (1984). See also Stewart v. Sonneborn, 98 U.S. 187, 8 OTTO 187, 25 L.Ed. 116 (1878), Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575, 577 (1954); Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 371 Pa. 308, 89 A.2d 809, 810 (1952); Penton v. Canning, 57 Wyo. 390, 118 P.2d 1002......
-
In re B & L Oil Co., Bankruptcy No. 82 B 4065 Mc
...favorably to a defendant, a claim for malicious prosecution is not a "matured claim" giving rise to a cause of action. Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575 In In re Rawson, 40 B.R. 167 (Bankr.N. D.Oh.1984), the trustee brought an action against various parties who had agreed to pu......
-
United States v. Levering, Civ. A. No. 77-142.
...not be interposed in the very proceeding that is the basis of the claim. Ivey v. Daus, 17 F.R.D. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Alexander v. Petty, 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575 (1954); Prosser, supra, at 853; Note, 58 Yale L.J. 490 (1949); 54 C.J.S. Malicious Prosecution § 54 (1948). Since this proceedi......
-
Babb v. Superior Court, S.F. 22761
...(Luckett v. Cohen (S.D.N.Y.1956) 169 F.Supp. 808, 810; Ivey v. Daus (S.D.N.Y.1955) 17 F.R.D. 319, 323; Alexander v. Petty (1954), 35 Del.Ch. 5, 108 A.2d 575, 577; Niedringhaus v. Zucker (Mo.1948) 208 S.W.2d 211, 212; Manufacturers & Jobbers Finance Corp. v. Lane, Supra, 221 N.C. 189, 19 S.E......