Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Ithaca Gas-light Company, Appellant, v. Leonard Treman et al., Appellants; Henry G. Beatley, Respondent, 1883 — 93 N.Y. 660 · caselaw · US
General
Ithaca Gas-light Company, Appellant, v. Leonard Treman et al., Appellants; Henry G. Beatley, Respondent
93 N.Y. 660·New York Court of Appeals·1883·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Ithaca Gas-light Company, Appellant, v. Leonard Treman et al., Appellants; Henry G. Beatley, Respondent.
(Argued October 16, 1883 ;
decided October 26, 1883.)
This action was brought by plaintiff against its president and treasurer for alleged malfeasance. The action was brought upon the demand of Henry G. Beatley, who owned one share of plaintiff’s capital stock, of the par value of $25. Upon his application an order was made allowing him to come in as a party defendant.
, From the order of General Term affirming said order this appeal is brought.
The mem. handed down is as follows :
“ The Supreme Court had the power, under section 452 of the Code, to grant or refuse Beatley’s application t.o be made a party to this action, and we cannot interfere with the exercise "of its discretion.
It does not, however, follow that he can take substantial control of the prosecution of the action. His position is one that . cannot commend him" to a court of equity. He has but one share of the stock, and if he can establish all the wrongs which he alleges, the amount of damage to be apportioned to that share could not exceed about $15. He bought his stock, knowing all the facts, and thus voluntarily exposed himself to the, wrongs of which he complains. Under such circumstances it remains to be determined how far he can vex the courts, and annoy other people with a litigation in which, even if he wins, he will lose more than he gains.
We regret to be obliged to dismiss the appeal, but do it without costs.”
J. McGuire for appellant.
L. E. Warren for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
mem. for dismissal of appeal. All concur.
Appeal dismissed.