Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
As to the petition of Cook, Nathan & Lehman. This claim is based on legal services rendered and expenses incurred in aid of the receivership. The firm represented a Stockholders’ Protective Committee. The services were rendered in the New York receivership. I shall not discuss the sort of facts which must exist as the basis for an allowance to counsel for a stockholders’ protective committee for services rendered in a receivership cause and payable out of the general funds of the estate. Judge Caffey of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, when the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
- Dobson v. . SimontonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
- Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1930
- Robinson v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- Robinson v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1953
- R. H. McWilliams, Jr., Co. v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1936
- Bodley v. JonesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1948
- Brady v. Pennroad Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
- Perrine v. Pennroad Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.