Woodward, Baldwin & Co. v. Arlington Mills Manufacturing Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
should not be vacated.
1Opinion of the Court
Lore, C. J.:
Upon the application of George S. Capelle, receiver of the said Arlington Mills Manufacturing Company, the defendant, a rule was issued to show cause why the above judgment should not be vacated.
In this case, judgment was recovered December 3, 1897, for *189want of an affidavit of defense. December 4, 1897, the amount was ascertained by the prothonotary to be $96,075.43.
We are asked to vacate the judgment, permit the defendant to appear, and that the case proceed as in similar cases, as if no judgment had been entered.
The grounds assigned for the application are that William H.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Morgan v. OwnbeySuperior Court of Delaware · 1916
- Hudson v. LaytonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1919
- Kuratle v. PyleCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1919