Eshleman v. Keenan
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :
On the conclusion of the testimony in this case, the defendants moved for leave to supplement their answers by averring that the stockholders of Sanitary had been assembled in annual meeting and that a majority of the stockholders had voted in favor of a resolution ratifying, approving and confirming the action of the directors and officers of that company in respect to the matters complained against in this suit. It may well be questioned whether the court at this late stage of the case would be justified in allowing the supplement to the answer to be filed. The suit has been…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rogers v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Brewer v. Proprietors of the Boston TheatreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Lofland v. CahallSupreme Court of Delaware · 1922
- Cahall v. LoflandCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1921
- Matthews v. Headley Chocolate Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Keenan v. EshlemanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1938
- Rosenthal v. Burry Biscuit Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1948
- Loft, Inc. v. GuthCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1938
- Eshleman v. KeenanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
- Steinberg v. HardyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1950
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.