Case Name: Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Jordan L. Mott, III, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.); Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Alexander B. Halliday, as Executor, etc., of John Reid, Deceased, Defendant. (Action No. 4.); Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Max Goebel, Defendant. (Action No. 5.); Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Edward Hammann, Defendant. (Action No. 6.); Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with J. L. Mott Company and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 9.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-11-05
Citations: 193 A.D. 698
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Jordan L. Mott, III, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Alexander B. Halliday, as Executor, etc., of John Reid, Deceased, Defendant. (Action No. 4.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Max Goebel, Defendant. (Action No. 5.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Edward Hammann, Defendant. (Action No. 6.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with J. L. Mott Company and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 9.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 193
Pages: 698–702

Head Matter:
Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Jordan L. Mott, III, and Others, Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Alexander B. Halliday, as Executor, etc., of John Reid, Deceased, Defendant. (Action No. 4.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Max Goebel, Defendant. (Action No. 5.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with Edward Hammann, Defendant. (Action No. 6.) Marie MacLean, Appellant, v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, Respondent, Impleaded with J. L. Mott Company and Another, Defendants. (Action No. 9.)
First Department,
November 5, 1920.
Corporations — complaint in derivative action brought by stockholder against directors of corporation — allegations as to demand upon corporation to bring action should not be stricken out.
In a derivative action brought by a single stockholder in her own behalf and for the benefit of other stockholders to require the defendants, who were officers and directors of the corporation, to account for alleged illegal acts, it is improper for the court to strike out allegations of the complaint showing a demand on the corporation to bring the action, and its refusal to do so, and also an allegation that the defendants who have acted fraudulently are in control of the corporation for which reason the corporation refuses to sue. Even though the allegation as to the reason for the refusal of the corporation to sue may be unnecessary, the entire allegation which is necessary to the plaintiff’s recovery should not be stricken out.
Dowling, J., and Clarke, P. J., dissent, with opinion.
Separate appeals by the plaintiff, Marie MacLean, in each of the above-entitled actions, from orders of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 12th day of April, 1920, striking out a certain portion of a specified paragraph of the complaint in each action as irrelevant and immaterial.
Robert L. Luce of counsel [Dams, Donohue & Deitz, attorneys], for the appellant.
James R. Sheffield of counsel [Abel E. Blachmar, Jr., with him on the brief], Sheffield & Betts, attorneys, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
The facts are stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Dowling. The 13th paragraph of the complaint includes the allegation of a demand upon the corporation to bring the -action and its refusal, and the further allegation that the defendants who have acted fraudulently are in control of the corporation. It is true that the fact stated in this further allegation is stated as a reason for the refusal of the corporation to sue. To my mind it is wholly immaterial what the pleader originally had in mind when he thus stated the fact. With this fact alleged in the complaint there can be no doubt, upon failure to prove a demand and refusal, if facts are proven justifying this allegation, that the complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that the action was improperly brought by an individual stockholder. That this fact is stated to be the reason for the refusal of the corporation to bring the action is probably unnecessary, but to strike out the allegation entirely is to strike out an allegation in the complaint that is material and relevant to plaintiff's right of recovery. For this reason the motion was improperly granted and the orders should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions denied, with ten dollars costs.
Latjghlin and Greenbaum, JJ., concur; Clarke, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissent.