Legal Opinion
Caldwell v. Armour
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided February 20, 1899PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Action on the case, being No. 29 to the September Term, 1898. The facts of the case and the contentions in the arguments of the respective counsel, sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Spruance, J:—
This action was brought by summons to the May Term, 1898, to which the sheriff returned non sunt inventi. An alias summons was issued to the September Term, 1898, to which the sheriff made the following return :
“Served the within summons upon Philip D. Armour, J. Ogden Armour and Philip D. Armour, Jr., trading as Armour and Company, the within named defendants, who are persons not residing in this state, but doing business therein by a branch establishment or agency in the City of Wilmington, by leaving a cop3r thereof with Edward E. Penley, their manager and agent, in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kendall v. United States Ex Rel. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Hall v. LanningSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
3Cited by8 opinions
- Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Flexner v. FarsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- Cabanne v. GrafSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Wein v. Crockett, Dist. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1948
- Thornburg v. James R. Bennett & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.