Legal Opinion

Sussex Investment Co. v. Clendaniel

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided July 22, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The statute of frauds is an insuperable obstacle to the complainant in this case. The statute is not relied upon by the defendant in his answer. But on his brief he cites Matthes v. Wier, 10 Del. Ch. 63, 84 A. 878, as an applicable authority upon the point of the statute of frauds. In that case the Chancellor said:

“At the hearing, without having demurred to the bill, or pleaded the statute, or claimed the benefit thereof by the answer, the defendant insists on the protection of the statute. The law respecting the protection of the statute, where it is not pleaded, is well…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matthes v. WierCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1912
  2. Shepherd v. NilesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1924
  3. Houston v. TownsendCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1833

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Greer v. MooreCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  2. Hamilton v. TraubCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
  3. Acierno v. McCallSupreme Court of Delaware · 1970
  4. CSH Theatres, LLC v. Nederlander of San Francisco AssociatesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2015
  5. Chalik v. LevyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API