From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WILE v. BURNS BROS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1933
239 App. Div. 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

June 20, 1933.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Leonard B. Zeisler of counsel [ Herman H. Oppenheimer, attorney], for the appellants.

Roger M. Blough of counsel [ White Case, attorneys], for the respondent.


The relief sought in the first Wile action is similar to that requested in Wile v. Burns Bros., No. 1, 239 App. Div. 59), argued herewith, which is referred to as the second Wile action. Since the denial by the Special Term of the motion herein, Mr. Justice GLENNON on April 28, 1933, by order, required the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint, making it more definite and certain. The amended complaint has not yet been served. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

FINCH, P.J., MERRELL and TOWNLEY, JJ., concur; McAVOY, J., taking no part.

Appeal from order entered April 21, 1933, dismissed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.


Summaries of

WILE v. BURNS BROS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1933
239 App. Div. 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

WILE v. BURNS BROS

Case Details

Full title:JEROME WILE and Others, Suing as Class "A" Stockholders of BURNS BROS., a…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1933

Citations

239 App. Div. 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
265 N.Y.S. 469

Citing Cases

WILE v. BURNS BROS

We have herewith dismissed an appeal from such order. ( Wile v. Burns Bros., No. 2, 239 App. Div. 67. ) The…

General Investment Corp. v. Warriner

We have herewith dismissed an appeal from such order. ( Wile v. Burns Bros., No. 2, 239 App. Div. 67.) The…