Legal Opinion

Jefferis v. William D. Mullen Company

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided March 24, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The motion for leave to amend by filing a substituted bill must be denied. The principle upon which this disposition of the motion rests is that it is not permitted to present an entirely different case by amendment from that which was presented by the bill as originally drawn. Merchants’ Union Trust Co. v. New Philadelphia Graphite Co., 10 Del. Ch. 155, 87 A. 1022. That the new bill presents an entirely new case seems clear. This yrill appear from a reading of the two bills.

The original bill presents the case of a declaration of dividends by the corporation and a refusal or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Harden v. Eastern States Public Service Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1923
  2. Merchants Union Trust Co. v. New Philadelphia Graphite Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Perrott v. United States Banking CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1944
  2. Lenahan v. National Computer Analysts Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API