Legal Opinion

Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided November 13, 1964PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Seitz, Chancellor:

[1] Defendants were successful on the merits. Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp., 42 Del.Ch. 21, 203 A.2d 53. Defendant Fish Engineering seeks to have the unsuccessful plaintiff pay its counsel fees. Assuming that the allowance of counsel fees to the successful party is a permissible discretionary matter with a court of equity, I conclude that the facts of this case do not move me to allow them to defendant Fish Engineering. First, in this type of case the granting of an allowance would be most unusual. Compare Maurer v. International Re-Insurance, 33 Del. Ch. 456, 95 A.2d…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1953
  2. In re First Account of Equitable Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1943
  3. Bata v. HillCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
  4. Bata v. HillCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
  5. Claus v. BabiarzCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1963

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wilmington Trust Co. v. CoulterCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
  2. Wilmington Trust Company v. CoulterCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
  3. Division of Child Support Enforcement v. SmallwoodSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
  4. Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1964
  5. Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API