Legal Opinion

Finch v. Barr & Dougherty, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 21, 1926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The alleged nuisance has never been established by a trial before a jury at law. Whether the fact of a private nuisance ought first to be established at law, need not be determined in this cause. For the present purpose the assumption most favorable to the complainants will be adopted, viz., that this court has power to enjoin a private nuisance without a prior finding by. a law court of the fact of its existence. Yet on this assumption, the bill ought to be dismissed.

This is for the reason that even though the Court of Chancery assumes power to itself try and determine the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co. v. PaschallCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1882
  2. Wolcott v. DoremusCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1917
  3. Sellers v. Parvis & Williams Co.United States Circuit Court · 1886
  4. Simon v. Pyrites Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1925
  5. Gray ex rel. Thomas v. BaynardCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1883

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Town of Seaford v. Eastern Shore Public Service Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
  2. Ciconte v. ShockleyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1950
  3. Ciconte v. ShockleyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1950
  4. Cain v. RoggeroCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API