Heinsohn v. Chandler
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
When the defendant, following the final decree in divorce of March 4, 1935, reduced the weekly payments to twenty-five dollars, he entertained the view, as expressed by his attorney in the letter of March 30, 1936, that since the complainant was no longer his wife the agreement”, in so far as it contemplated support for her, was possibly terminated. In his attorney’s letter of March 25, 1937, however, the twenty-five dollar weekly payments are stated to have been for “the support of wife and children,” which expression is at variance with the previously expressed view.
Did the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Galusha v. . GalushaNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Duryea v. . BlivenNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Clark, Trustee, Etc. v. . FosdickNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Seuss v. SchukatIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
- Electrical Research Products, Inc. v. Vitaphone Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Boltinghouse v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2003
- Dumel v. DumelCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
- Walter v. WalterSupreme Court of Delaware · 1957
- Dumel v. DumelCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
- Shaw v. ShawCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1939
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.