Reinhardt v. Chalfant
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The information involved the protection of a public right and, therefore, was properly brought by the At*218tomey General. A relator with a private interest in the public right was a proper party in order that there be some one responsible for costs of the cause. When this original relator conveyed away her land her grantee by succeeding to her private and special interest in enforcing the public right was properly substituted as relator. Liberality in the substitution of parties in the interest of justice has always been exercised in Chancery. Satterihwait v. Marshall, 4 Del. Ch.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Downey v. HoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Riley v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Reading Township v. TelferSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
- Phillips v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Deakyne v. Commissioners of LewesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Easton v. KochSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Indian Rocks Beach South Shore v. EwellSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
- City of Spokane v. Catholic Bishop of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1949
- Judge v. RagoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.