Legal Opinion

Schwartz v. Miner

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 25, 1957PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Canaday v. Superior CourtSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955
  2. Sands v. Lefcourt Realty CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955
  3. Berwick v. Associated Gas & Electric Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
  4. Abercrombie v. DaviesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1955
  5. Abercrombie v. DaviesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1955

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Greyhound Corporation v. HeitnerSupreme Court of Delaware · 1976
  2. Townsend Corp. of America v. DavidsonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
  3. Baker v. GoetzDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1971
  4. Nacci v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1972
  5. Schwartz v. MinerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1957

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API