Schwartz v. Miner
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
This is a stockholder’s derivative action brought against certain corporate and individual defendants. The individual. defendants all being nonresidents, process was requested and issued under 10 Del.C. § 366. This so-called sequestration statute authorizes the seizure of the Delaware property of nonresidents to compel their appearance. ..
The sequestrator’s report disclosed that no property of the defendant, Harold S. Miner (“defendant”) was seized pursuant to the process issued. It is also conceded that the defendant has not been personally served or otherwise appeared in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Canaday v. Superior CourtSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955
- Sands v. Lefcourt Realty CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955
- Berwick v. Associated Gas & Electric Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
- Abercrombie v. DaviesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1955
- Abercrombie v. DaviesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1955
3Cited by9 opinions
- Greyhound Corporation v. HeitnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1976
- Townsend Corp. of America v. DavidsonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
- Baker v. GoetzDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1971
- Nacci v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1972
- Schwartz v. MinerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.