Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., A--123
Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Writing for the Court | PROCTOR; Pursuant to his holding that the proposed corporate transaction was a merger |
Citation | 35 N.J. 343,173 A.2d 225 |
Parties | Benjamin APPLESTEIN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED BOARD & CARTON CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, et al., Defendants, and Saul L. Epstein and Interstate Container Corporation, Defendants. Martha U. BEUERLEIN, t/a Hennesey & Co., individually and on behalf of a class of stockholders similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED BOARD & CARTON CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Saul L. Epstein and Interstate Container Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. |
Docket Number | No. A--123,A--123 |
Decision Date | 30 June 1961 |
Page 343
v.
UNITED BOARD & CARTON CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation,
et al., Defendants, and Saul L. Epstein and
Interstate Container Corporation, Defendants.
Martha U. BEUERLEIN, t/a Hennesey & Co., individually and on
behalf of a class of stockholders similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
UNITED BOARD & CARTON CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation,
et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Saul L. Epstein
and Interstate Container Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants.
Decided June 30, 1961.
Page 345
[173 A.2d 226] Isadore Glauberman, Jersey City, for defendants-appellants United Board & Carton Corp. and others (Sheldon A. Weiss, Jersey City, on the brief).
Morris M. Schnitzer, Newark, for defendants-appellants Saul L. Epstein and Interstate Container Corp. (Kasen, Schnitzer & Kasen, Newark, attorneys).
Seymour Margulies, Jersey City, for plaintiff-respondent, Martha U. Beuerlein, t/a Hennesey & Co., individually and on behalf of a class of stockholders similarly situated (Warren, Chasan & Leyner, Jersey City, attorneys; Seymour Margulies, Jersey City, on the brief).
Page 346
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PROCTOR, J.
The defendants seek reversal of two Chancery Division orders denying their applications for an injunction to restrain the plaintiff, Martha Beuerlein, from prosecuting a stockholder's derivative action in the Supreme Court of New York.
Events leading up to the institution of the New York action are as follows: the plaintiff, a New Jersey resident and a minority stockholder of the United Board & Carton Corporation (United), a New Jersey corporation, instituted a class action in the Chancery Division to prevent consummation of an agreement for the 'exchange of stock' between United and Interstate Container Corporation (Interstate), a corporation of New York. 1 Named as defendants were United, its seven directors, and Interstate. Saul L. Epstein, president and sole stockholder of Interstate, and a party to the aforesaid agreement, was permitted to intervene as a defendant. In her complaint, plaintiff charged that the defendants intended to effectuate a corporate merger under the guise of an exchange of stock and in disregard of stockholder rights under the New Jersey merger statute. R.S. 14:12--1 et seq., N.J.S.A. She also charged that the proposed transaction was illegal because it was unfair, a despoliation and waste of United assets, and the product of bad faith, self-dealing and concealment by the individual defendants. In accordance with her allegations, plaintiff asked for an injunction prohibiting a stockholder meeting previously called by United for approval of the proposed corporate transaction, and a declaration that the agreement between United and Interstate was illegal. She did not ask damages for United or herself.
[173 A.2d 227] United answered the complaint and cross-claimed against Interstate and Epstein for a declaratory judgment that the
Page 347
corporate transaction contemplated by the parties was a merger and that the United-Interstate agreement had lapsed by its terms. Interstate and Epstein answered the complaint and cross-claim, and cross-claimed in turn for specific performance or damages in the alternative. United answered, reaffirming the position taken on its own cross-claim. Certain stockholders of United, who were in favor of the agreement, were granted leave to intervene as defendants, answered the complaints and all cross-claims, and counterclaimed and cross-claimed in turn for a declaratory judgment that the agreement was a valid stock purchase to be followed by a merger. Interstate, Epstein and United answered the intervenors' cross-claim. And the plaintiff was given leave to respond to all cross-claims and counterclaims.Before the plaintiff filed her responsive pleadings, she and all defendants executed a written stipulation whereby they agreed:
'1. To submit for decision, as if on motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, the issue whether the Agreement * * * between United Board & Carton Corporation, Interstate Container Corporation and Saul L. Epstein, and the transaction * * * (contemplated therein), amount to a merger, entitled dissenting stockholders of United Board & Carton Corporation to an appraisal of their stock, and is therefore invalid * * *
'5. All other issues in the case are reserved.'
Judge Kilkenny, then sitting in the Chancery Division, consented to decide 'as upon motions * * * for partial summary judgment * * * (the) single limited issue' presented by the parties' stipulation. He held in a written opinion that the proposed 'exchange of stock' was a De facto merger. 60 N.J.Super. 333, 159 A.2d 146, 148 (1960). And he subsequently entered a judgment enjoining the defendants from carrying out the United-Interstate agreement except upon prior compliance with the merger statute. Defendants appealed. We certified the cause before argument was heard in the Appellate Division, and affirmed on the opinion of the Chancery Division. 33 N.J. 72, 161 A.2d 474 (1960).
Page 348
Sixteen days later, the plaintiff instituted the derivative stockholder action in the Supreme Court of New York on behalf of United and against Interstate, Epstein, and the directors of United. In her New York complaint, the plaintiff charged that the defendants, by participating in the United-Interstate agreement and in efforts to consummate the corporate transaction contemplated therein, were guilty of fraud, unfairness, concealment and self-dealing. She sought monetary damages on behalf of United for the corporation's expenses in connection with the proposed merger and resulting litigation, and damages for herself to cover her expenses in the New York suit. United and its directors then applied to the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, for an order restraining the plaintiff from proceeding with the New York action. Interstate and Epstein also applied for such an order. The applications were made as ancillary to the original New Jersey proceeding. Judge Kilkenny, who rendered the judgment that the proposed corporate transaction was a merger, had been assigned to the Appellate Division. Consequently, another judge of the Chancery Division heard the applications.
The two groups of defendants advanced different reasons for issuance of the injunction. United and its directors argued that plaintiff's New York action is properly a facet of the New Jersey litigation. They contended that for that reason and because all the New York defendants are before the New Jersey court an injunction should issue to prevent the vexation and harassment incident to defending bistate litigation. Interstate and Epstein argued that Judge Kilkenny's judgment terminated the New Jersey proceeding; that the [173 A.2d 228] New York and New Jersey actions concern the same controversy; that plaintiff would be precluded under New Jersey law from further litigating in this State the matters which are the subject of her New York action; and that, therefore, an injunction should issue to prevent evasion of the New Jersey law by resort to the New York courts. The Chancery Division rejected both contentions and denied the
Page 349
applications. It reasoned that the defendants were not subject to the harassment of bistate litigation because the judgment entered by Judge Kilkenny terminated the New Jersey proceeding. And it concluded that 'the controversy in each case differs; the object in each case is different, and the relief sought is also different.'The defendants separately appealed to the Appellate Division and obtained an interlocutory injunction pending determination of the appeals. The plaintiff then made a motion requesting us to recall the mandate which issued in conformity with our affirmance of the judgment entered by Judge Kilkenny, and to 'enter an order expressly and specifically directing that the litigation be in all things terminated, except for the right to counsel to move for the allowance of counsel fees before the trial court.' We denied the motion, but certified and consolidated the appeals before argument in the Appellate Division.
The defendants ask us to reverse the orders below for the same reasons they asked the Chancery Division to issue the injunction.
It is beyond doubt that a court of equity has the power to restrain a party over which it has personal jurisdiction from prosecuting judicial proceedings in another state. Trustees of Princeton University v. Trust Co. of N.J., 22 N.J. 587, at p. 598, 127 A.2d 19, at p. 25 (1956); O'Loughlin v. O'Loughlin, 6 N.J. 170, at p. 178, 78 A.2d 64, at p. 67 (1951); Messner, 'The Jurisdiction Of A Court Of Equity Over Persons To Compel The Doing Of Acts Outside The Territorial Limits Of The State,' 14 Minn.L.Rev. 494, 495--506 (1930); Note, 'When Courts Of Equity Will Enjoin Foreign Suits,' 27 Iowa L.Rev. 76 (1941); Annotation 6 A.L.R.2d 896, at p. 899 (1949). Our courts have consistently exercised that power...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prevratil v. Mohr
...(1951), the Court broadened the reach of the doctrine by requiring joinder of defenses. See also Applestein v. United Bd. & Carton Corp., 35 N.J. 343, 356, 173 A.2d 225 (1961) (stating that a defendant "must assert all matters which will defeat a claim against him and a plaintiff must seek ......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Bros., Inc.
...to and part of the same controversy. Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 434, 400 A.2d 1189 (1979); Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., 35 N.J. 343, 356, 173 A.2d 225 (1961); Silverstein v. Abco Vending Service, 37 N.J.Super. 439, 449, 117 A.2d 527 In Falcone v. Middlesex County Med. Soc., ......
-
Tevis v. Tevis
...of litigation. Cf. Falcone v. Middlesex County Med. Soc., 47 N.J. 92, 219 A.2d 505 (1966); Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., 35 N.J. 343, 356, 173 A.2d 225 (1961); Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 103 A.2d 9, Cert. den. 348 U.S. 835, 75 S.Ct. 58, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954); also, McFadd......
-
Cogdell by Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange
...curbing the inconvenience, delay and expense incident to independent trials." Page 17 See also Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp., 35 N.J. 343, 356, 173 A.2d 225 (1961) ("a defendant must assert all matters which will defeat a claim against him and a plaintiff must seek complete reli......