Legal Opinion

Dougherty v. Conly

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided February 1, 1924PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The interpleading answers call for a construction of that portion of the will of John Conly which is quoted *179in the above statement of facts. The question as presented concerns solely the right of the defendant, Elizabeth C. Crozer, to receive the stock upon delivery by her of her unsecured note, and the rights of her brothers to have a time now fixed beyond which renewals of her note shall not be granted and a method of cash payments now defined by which she shall reduce and eventually liquidate the note. There are thus two questions at issue. They are, first, as to the matter…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Works v. HersheySupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
  2. Page v. CookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
  3. Smithers v. JunkerU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois · 1889
  4. Gregg v. BaileySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
  5. Ryan v. LitchfieldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Equitable Trust Co. v. PennettoCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API