Legal Opinion

Cochran v. F. H. Smith Co.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided May 18, 1934PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

The defendant’s demurrer raises several grounds of objection to the bill. There is one ground that is fundamental and, if well taken, renders unnecessary the consideration of the others.

It does not seem necessary to cite authority to sustain the proposition that an action at law would lie against the defendant if it did, as charged in this bill, induce the Commonwealth Finance Corporation to purchase the various notes by representations that amounted to fraud. Deceit would be the basis of the action, and of course the remedy, if the complainant prevailed, would be a judgment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Buzard v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Cartmell v. NigroCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  3. Polhemus v. Holland Trust Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Bokat v. Getty Oil CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1970
  2. Harold Kraft v. Wisdomtree Investments, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2016
  3. McMahon v. New Castle AssociatesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1987
  4. Kahn v. Seaboard Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1993
  5. Harman v. Masoneilan International, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1982

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