Legal Opinion
In re Tull
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided October 12, 1910No. 1PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Petition for Rule to show cause why James E. Tull, Alderman of the town of Laurel, should not be attached for contempt for certain omissions, neglects and defaults; the character of which appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWoolley, J.
delivering the opinion of the court:
We understand that this action is based upon the statute, the particular section of which (Rev. Code 1852, amended to 1893, c. 92, p. 697, § 2) reads as follows:
“Sec. 2. The said judges, or any two of them, shall have full power and authority to examine, correct and punish the contempt, omissions, neglects, favors, corruptions and defaults of all justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, clerks and other officers within this State; and also shall award process for levying all such fines, forfeitures and amercements as shall be imposed, or recovered, in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. InsleySupreme Court of Delaware · 1958
- State v. MatushefskeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1965
- Petition for a Rule to Show Cause Why Lewis Should Not Be Punished for Favors & CorruptionsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1913