Legal Opinion
FI Du Pont, Glore Forgan & Company v. Silliman
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided September 6, 1973PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
For the reasons stated in the careful opinion below (Del.Super., 302 A.2d 327), we agree that the plaintiff may maintain this action against F. I. duPont, Glore For-gan & Company, a limited partnership, in its common name as a partnership entity, without joinder of individual partners.
It is to be noted that any doubt as to the meaning of 10 Del.C. § 3904 in this regard has now been removed by the July 1, 1973 amendment thereto, - Del.L.Ch. -. *
The judgment below is affirmed.
*
10 Del.C. § 3904, ns amended, provides:
Ҥ 3904. Suits and Judgments by and Against Unincorporated Associations
“An…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Silliman v. DuPontSuperior Court of Delaware · 1972
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bechtel v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Furek v. University of DelawareSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
- Hb General Corp. Hb Limited Realty Corp. v. Manchester Partners, L.P., Defendant/third-Party v. H.B. Partners, L.P. And Vanderbilt Development Corporation, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Hibou, Inc. v. RamsingSuperior Court of Delaware · 1974
- HB General Corp. v. Manchester Partners, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.