Phoenix Finance Corp. v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
The determination of the present question involves considerations of both law and fact. The defendant admits that the sale of toll tickets took place in 1931, and contends that the plaintiff or its predecessor was immediately thereafter entitled to the performance of the contract. The defendant contends that a party purchasing toll tickets cannot prevent the running of the statute of limitations as to such tickets, by delay in presenting them, or by a postponement of the demand of performance of the contract after he is entitled to such…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jameson v. JamesonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- KoEune v. State Bank of Schuylkill HavenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Fallon v. FallonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Massie v. ByrdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- 21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1073, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23942h Frank C. Schoonejongen Wesley L. Losson John S. Dunning William Martone William v. Hanzalek Edward F. Ziek Melvin Deblock Joseph Colquhoun Joseph Majerscak Gerard Abbamont and Olga Wolsey, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Curtiss-Wright CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Petition of Mulco ProductsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1956
- Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbHCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2013
- Oberly v. Howard Hughes Medical InstituteCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1984
- Pierson v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.