Wightman v. San Francisco Bay Toll-Bridge
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The reasons upon 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. The said…
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 by21 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
- Perrine v. Pennroad Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
- Hodson v. Hodson Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.