Legal Opinion

Chadwick v. Parkhill Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided March 28, 1928PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

There are two matters before the court. The first is the preliminary one of whether the motions should be granted which were presented by Gill's solicitor to the effect that the case be opened for the taking of testimony by Gill at some indefinite time in the future, or, failing that, that the court defer decision of the intervention controversy until the return of a commission issued to a solicitor in England for the taking of medical testimony upon the alleged inability of Gill to attend in this court on January 25 last. If these motions be refused, the second matter before the court is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lippman v. Kehoe Stenograph Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1916
  2. State v. New York-Mexican Oil Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1923
  3. Allen v. StewartCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1895
  4. Chadwick v. Parkhill Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In re Giant Portland Cement Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
  2. Southern Production Co. v. SabathSupreme Court of Delaware · 1952
  3. In re Canal Constuction Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1936
  4. Mau v. Montana Pacific Oil Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928
  5. Schenck v. Salt Dome Oil Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1943

6 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