Legal Opinion

Haggerty v. Wilmington Trust Co.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided July 26, 1937PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

The purpose of the complainant in having the title put in his son’s name, hinted at rather strongly in the bill and very definitely revealed in his testimony, was to hinder and delay his creditors. He testified that he had no purpose to defeat their ultimate payment, as he always intended to pay them and did in fact ultimately pay them in full. He later conveyed his three lots to his daughter who paid his bills.

The solicitor for the complainant argues that the fact that the complainant did in fact eventually pay all of his debts, removes from the transaction every ingredient of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fox v. . MoyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Hildebrand v. WilligNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1903
  3. Rentoul v. SweeneyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1927
  4. Vollkommer v. . CodyNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  5. Pierson v. PiersonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1874

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bockstoce Et Ux. v. Pittsbgh. Rwys. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  2. China Resource Products (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. Fayda International, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1994
  3. John Julian Construction Co. v. Monarch Builders, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1974
  4. Dunn v. Wilson & Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1943
  5. Derickson v. DericksonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API