Southerland v. Decimo Club, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Upon the question of whether or not the so-called plan is effective and in operation, there is a dispute. *190The circumstance to which the defendant’s witnesses point as showing that the plan is not in operation is this, namely, that certain assets have not been transferred by the club to the trust as contemplated by the plan, and therefore the latter is not yet effective. To this it is to be said that the transfer of the assets referred to does not appear to be made a sine qua non of the plan’s operation. That the trust, notwithstanding the absence of the transfer, is an active…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Read v. Tidewater Coal Exchange, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1922
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. Michigan Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
3Cited by10 opinions
- Stevens Bros. Foundation, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- Associated Hospital Service, Inc. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Community Blood Bank of the Kansas City Area, Inc., a Corporation v. Federal Trade CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1969
- State Ex Rel. Troy v. Lumbermen's ClinicWashington Supreme Court · 1936
- Iowa Federation of Women's Clubs v. DilleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.