Legal Opinion

Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided December 28, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
  2. Dobson v. . SimontonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  3. Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1930
  4. Robinson v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
  5. 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

  1. Maurer v. International Re-Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1953
  2. R. H. McWilliams, Jr., Co. v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1936
  3. Bodley v. JonesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1948
  4. Brady v. Pennroad Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1948
  5. Perrine v. Pennroad Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1947

2 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