Legal Opinion

Hitchens v. Hillman

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 21, 1932PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

A question is raised as to the jurisdiction. The solicitor for the defendant makes the point that in an action of ejectment at law, the complainant would be permitted to show that the deed was never delivered, that therefore he has a sufficient remedy at law and that as a consequence the Court of Chancery has no jurisdiction to entertain the bill. Revised Code 1915, § 3844. That the grantor in an allegedly undelivered deed may maintain ejectment against the grantee therein who is in possession and try out the issue of delivery, is shown by several cases reported in this State…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fox v. WhartonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1878
  2. Jamison v. CravenCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1872
  3. Hollis v. KinneyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1923
  4. Illinois Finance Co. v. Interstate Rural Credit Ass'nCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1917
  5. Doe v. RoeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1915

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hughes Tool Company v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1974
  2. Family Court of the State of Delaware v. Department of Labor & Industrial RelationsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1974
  3. Woods v. SpoturnoSuperior Court of Delaware · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API