Cieniewicz v. Sliwka
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is defective in that Kopanski and wife, through whom the title passed on its way from Sliwka and wife to Boc and wife, are not made parties. While the bill charges that the conveyances made by Sliwka, et ux., to Kopanski, et ux., and by the latter to Boc, et ux., were all made in fraud of the rights of the complainants under the contract; yet no relief against the alleged fraud is sought beyond a mere obtaining of the title by means of a decree for specific performance of the contract. No relief is sought against…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matthes v. WierCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1912
- Crockett v. GreenCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1870
- Harriman v. TyndaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Coppage v. Equitable Guarantee & Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1917
- McFarland v. ReeveCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Blair v. F. H. Smith Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
- Birbeck v. American Toll Bridge Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1938