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, 326 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1963)
Annotate this CaseDecided 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
