From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edelstein v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1924
208 App. Div. 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Opinion

February, 1924.


Order reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss complaint granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff, within ten days, to serve an amended complaint upon payment of costs. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. To enable plaintiff to bring an action of this character, that is, a representative action, she must show that she is a stockholder at the time the action is instituted. ( Hanna v. Lyon, 179 N.Y. 107, 110.) The complaint contains no allegation of present stock ownership. Kelly, P.J., Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., not voting.


Summaries of

Edelstein v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1924
208 App. Div. 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)
Case details for

Edelstein v. Frank

Case Details

Full title:MAX EDELSTEIN, Respondent, Appellant, v. MEYER FRANK and Another…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1924

Citations

208 App. Div. 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Citing Cases

Miller v. Miller

January 30, 1939. Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss complaint under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil…

Kaufman v. Wolfson

Therefore, when this action was instituted, neither plaintiff nor Shipbuilding owned any stock in Devoe.…