Legal Opinion

Peters v. Peters

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided November 29, 1933PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor :

The first ground of demurrer is that equity is without jurisdiction because the complainant has a sufficient remedy at law. That the complainant, the wife, could not sue the defendant, her husband, for damages for breach of the contract here sought specifically to be enforced, is conceded by the solicitor for the defendant. Plotkin v. Plotkin, 2 W. W. Harr. (32 Del.) 455, 125 A. 455, settles that proposition so far as the Superior Court can settle it. Where is there then any remedy, not to say any sufficient remedy, at law for the complainant on the contract? The defendant…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Walker v. Walker'sSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. Archbell v. ArchbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  3. Commonwealth v. RichardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  4. Edleson v. EdlesonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
  5. Daniels v. BenedictCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Boblitz v. BoblitzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
  2. Schlemm v. SchlemmSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  3. Silvestri v. SlatowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Hagen v. VineySupreme Court of Florida · 1936
  5. duPont v. duPontCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1953

18 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