Legal Opinion
Banks v. Cristina Copper Mines, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided September 9, 1953PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Bramhall, Vice Chancellor:
Defendant’s motion is based upon
its contention that defendant is not insolvent within the meaning of Title “8”, Code of 1953, § 291. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion is based upon the contention that defendant is unable to pay its debts as they mature in the usual course of business, is therefore insolvent within the meaning of the statute and that this court should exercise its discretion and *46appoint a receiver to protect its assets. Since my determination of these motions must be based upon the facts presented by the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions, a discussion of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jones v. Maxwell Motor Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1921
- McKee v. Standard Minerals Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
- Carson v. Allegany Window Glass Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Delaware · 1911
- Freeman v. Hare & Chase, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928
- Manning v. Middle States Oil Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Production Resources Group, L.L.C. v. NCT Group, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2004
- Pereira v. CoganDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Paulman v. Kritzer Radiant Coils, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
- Paulman v. Kritzer Radiant Coils, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
- Banks v. Cristina Copper MinesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1953