Legal Opinion

Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co. of America

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided January 6, 1925PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The complainants’ motion to dismiss the bill without prejudice will be considered as though the amended answer and cross-bill had been duly filed in pursuance of leave. This is the setting most adverse to the complainants in which to *371place their motion. But even so, I think the motion must be granted for the reasons which follow.

“A plaintiff,” says Daniell in the fourth edition of his work on Chancery Pleading and Practice, vol. 1, p. 792, “may in general obtain an order to dismiss his own bill, with costs, as a matter of course, at any time before decree.” Mr. Chief Justice…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Ex Parte Skinner & Eddy Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  3. Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Union Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  4. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1893
  5. Cowham v. McNiderDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1919

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. WarrickSupreme Court of Delaware · 1938
  2. Gray Co. v. Alemite Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
  3. In Re Chelsea Exchange Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
  4. Byron Lasky & Associates, Inc. v. Cameron-Brown Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  5. Security Trust Co. v. CoolingCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1942

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API