Mercantile Trading Co. v. Rosenbaum Grain Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
First, as to the motion to dismiss. No answer has yet been filed by the intervenors. They have filed a paper in the form of an answer. But by the terms of the order allowing its filing, it is to be taken as an affidavit only in considering the motion to dismiss, and as an answer in case the motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to dismiss therefore stands in the technical position of having been filed before answer.
In Holschumaker, et al., v. Etchells, et al., 9 Del. Ch. 33, 74 A. 644, a motion to dismiss after answer filed because of a want of equity appearing on the face of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lord v. VeazieSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Cleveland v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of the United States · 1862
- Finch v. Warrior Cement Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928
- Wood-Paper Company v. HeftSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Davis v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Karasik v. Pacific Eastern Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1935
- Beacon Wool Corp. v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
- Sandler v. Schenley Industries, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
- Sandler v. Schenley IndustriesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1951
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.