Opinion · Nylaw New York

THORNE v. BRAND, 252 App. Div. 857 (1937)

ADDISON C. THORNE & Others, on Behalf of Themselves & All OtherStockholders Similarly Situated & on Behalf of BRAND'S Rest. CONTROLCORPORATION, Respondents, v. H. RUSSELL BRAND & Others, Defendants, andBRAND'S Rest. CONTROL Corp., Appellant., 252 A.D. 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1937)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1937-11-05
Topic: general

THORNE v. BRAND, 252 App. Div. 857 (1937) ADDISON C. THORNE and Others, on Behalf of Themselves and All OtherStockholders Similarly Situated and on Behalf of BRAND'S RESTAURANT CONTROLCORPORATION, Respondents, v. H.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed THORNE v. BRAND, 252 App. Div. 857 (1937). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

THORNE v. BRAND,252 App. Div. 857(1937)

ADDISON C. THORNE and Others, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other

Stockholders Similarly Situated and on Behalf of BRAND'S RESTAURANT CONTROL

CORPORATION, Respondents, v. H. RUSSELL BRAND and Others, Defendants, and

BRAND'S RESTAURANT CONTROL CORPORATION, Appellant.

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

November 5, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. [Seeante, p. 771.] The following question is certified: Was the service of the summons and complaint as herein made on the Secretary of State of the State of New York on November 13, 1936, valid and authorized pursuant to section 216, paragraph e, of the General Corporation Law? Leave to the appellant to answer is extended pending the determination by the Court of Appeals.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ.