Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corporation/Concurrence Harlan

by John Marshall Harlan II

United States Supreme Court

383 U.S. 363

Dora SUROWITZ, etc., Petitioner,  v.  HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION et al.

 Argued: Jan. 20, 1966. --- Decided: March 7, 1966

Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring.

Rule 23(b) directs that in a derivative suit 'the complaint shall be verified by oath' but nothing dictates that the verification be that of the plaintiff shareholder. See Bosc v. 39 Broadway, Inc., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 825. In the present circumstances, it seems to me the affidavit of Walter J. Rockler, counsel for Mrs. Surowitz, amounts to an adequate verification by counsel, which I think is permitted by a reasonable interpretation of the Rule at least in cases such as this. On this rpemise, I agree with the decision of the Court.

Notes