State v. Hancock
Superior Court of Delaware
Information in the nature of a writ of quo warranta. Omitting the caption, the information was as follows: “ Kent County, ss.
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of a writ of quo warranta. Omitting the caption, the information was as follows: “ Kent County, ss. “Robert C. White, Attorney-General of the State of Delaware, who sues for the said State of Delaware in this behalf, comes here before the Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County on this 24th day of October, 1899, at the October Term of said Court, and for the said State of Delaware gives the said Court here to understand and be informed that Joseph Hancock, Franklin Temple, William W. Powers, Theodore Townsend, Henry Reichardt,…
1Opinion of the Court
Lore, C. J.:
The main question raised by this demurrer, is whether the “ Delaware Electric Railway Co.,” was organized and created in violation of Section 1, Article 9, of the Constitution, promulgated June 10, 1897; which provides that, “ No corporation shall hereafter be created, renewed or revived, by special act, but only by or under general law.”
It is conceded that the Delaware Electric Railway Company, *290was formed by the union of the Dover and Milford Eailway Company, and the Dover and Bay Shore Eailway Company, under the terms of their special acts of incorporation; which acts were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Weir v. DawsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
- Wilmington City Ry. Co. v. People's Ry. Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1900
- Benas v. Title Guaranty Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1924