Legal Opinion

du Pont v. du Pont

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 14, 1932PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

A question has been raised with respect to parties—whether the cause can proceed to a decree because unborn contingent remaindermen cannot be bound by it, and second, if so, whether the living issue of Eugene du Pont, Anne du Pont Peyton and Julia S. du Pont Andrews should be made parties to the bill. The interests of the living issue just referred to are purely contingent. They depend for their vesting first upon the absence of issue on the part of Amy E. du Pont, next (subject to the failure of Miss du Pont to exercise the power of appointment) upon their surviving both her…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. McArthur v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Kerrison v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Hale v. HaleIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Faulkner v. DavisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1868
  5. Taylor v. CrossonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1916

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. A. B. v. Wilmington Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1963
  2. Equitable Trust Co v. McCombCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  3. P v. Wilmington Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
  4. Wilmington Trust Co. v. BladesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
  5. AB v. Wilmington Trust CompanySupreme Court of Delaware · 1963

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

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

Powered by the Exa API