Legal Opinion

Schenley Industries, Inc. v. Curtis

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 23, 1959PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Bramhall, Justice:

This appeal relates to the timeliness of a written demand for payment of his stock by a stockholder dissenting from a merger of two corporations. The demand was deposited in the mail on the last day of the period within which such demand must be made, but it was not received until the day following.

The pertinent facts are as follows:

Park & Tilford Distillers Corporation was merged into Schenley Industries, Inc., both corporations of the State of Delaware, under §253 of the Delaware Corporation Law, 8 Del.C. § 253. This section provides, in part, that a dissenting stockholder…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chicago Corp. v. MundsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
  2. In re Northeastern Water Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schenley Industries, Inc. v. CurtisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API