Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Elna K. Shulof, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Stockholders of Cranston Print Works Company Who May Be Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Godfrey S. Rockefeller and Cranston Print Works Company, Defendants-appellees, Andavery Rockefeller, James S. Rockefeller, Edward Lawrence, Harold May and Russell C. Smith, Defendants
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 326 F.2d 86
Argued November 14, 1963 Decided November 14, 1963
Edward Nathan, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lester Kissel, of Meyer, Kissel, Matz & Seward, New York City (Henry V. Kensing, New York City, and John J. O'Brien, Jr., Belleville, N. J., on the brief, Edwards & Angell, by Edward Winsor, Providence, R. I., of counsel), for defendant-appellee Cranston Print Works Co.
Thomas F. Fennell, II, of Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for defendant-appellee Godfrey S. Rockefeller.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In open court we affirm the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York which declined to exercise jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Both state and federal law support the court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction to compel the declaration of a dividend by a foreign corporation. Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co., 288 U.S. 123, 53 S.Ct. 295, 77 L.Ed. 652 (1932); Weiss v. Routh, 149 F.2d 193 (2d Cir. 1945); Strassburger v. Singer Mfg. Co., 263 App.Div. 518, 33 N.Y.S.2d 424 (1942). Rhode Island is both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business of defendant corporation, and the action properly should have been brought there.