Legal Opinion
Wightman v. San Francisco Bay Toll-Bridge Co.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided July 18, 1928PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The reasons which the moving defendants advance in support of their motions are:
1. That the sequestration or seizure was made without due process of law.
2. That the Chancellor is without power or jurisdiction to make such an order.
3. That the Chancellor is without power to make such sequestration or seizure.
4. That said sequestration or seizure is not according to law.
The act under which the seizure is sought to be justified is found in Chapter 217, Vol. 35, Laws of Delaware, approved April 12, 1927. The act is an amendment of paragraph 3850, § 7, of the Revised Code of 1915.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bouree v. Trust Francais des Actions de la Franco-Wyoming Oil Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1924
- Skinner v. Educational Pictures Securities Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1925
3Cited by31 opinions
- Alexander Kahan, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lewis RosenstielCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Cantor v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Jacobs v. TenneyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1970
- Greene v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1953
- Perrine v. Pennroad Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.