Legal Opinion

Hegarty v. American Commonwealths Power Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided November 2, 1932PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

Facts are shown from which I conclude that at the time of the transactions hereinafter referred to, the respondent, the Power Company, which is now in receivership, controlled and dominated the Gas Company, the petitioner. Sundry intercorporate relations of creditor and debtor had been created prior to March 25, 1931, between these companies, and also between the respondent and others, certain of which were subsidiaries of the petitioner.

The stipulation of facts shows that as of March 31, 1931, the following transactions were put through by the petitioner and the respondent:

1;…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gay v. OsborneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Tootle v. First Natl. BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Sisson, Potter & Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891
  4. John V. Farwell Co. v. HiltonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1897

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co. v. Florida Evergreen FoliageSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
  2. Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  3. Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Clark v. Teeven Holding Co., Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1992
  5. Joseph D. Griggs v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2004

15 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