Legal Opinion

Schenck v. Salt Dome Oil Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 6, 1944PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harrington, Chancellor:

The real beneficial owners are the essential parties to a suit in equity. Hunter v. McCarthy, ante p. 27, 36 A. 2d 261; 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 135, p. 567. See also Walker v. Caldwell, 8 Del. Ch. 91, 67 A. 1085. But as a general rule, though the complainants have all of the equitable rights in the matters in controversy, the legal owners should also be made parties in order that they may be bound by the decree and to prevent any possible annoyance to the defendant by subsequent actions at law. 1 Daniell’s Ch. Pl. & Pr. (6 Amer. Ed.) *p. 193; Cutler v. Tuttle, 19 N.J. Eq.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Salt Dome Oil Corp. v. SchenckSupreme Court of Delaware · 1945
  2. In re Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
  3. Chadwick v. Parkhill Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928
  4. President v. PolkCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1821
  5. Cutler v. TuttleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1868

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Salt Dome Oil Corp. v. SchenckSupreme Court of Delaware · 1945
  2. In re the Appraisal of Shares of Common Stock of Universal Pictures Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944
  3. Lewis v. Corroon Reynolds CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1948
  4. McLain v. Lanova Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1944
  5. Raynor v. LTV Aerospace CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API