Legal Opinion
Halle v. Van Sweringen Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided May 27, 1936No. 20PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Layton, C. J.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
The notes are the principal debt. The trust indenture is the incidental security. Co-exisiting remedies peculiar to each exist. Philadelphia & Baltimore Central R. Co. v. Johnson, 54 Pa. 127. See Paepcke v. Paine, 253 Mich. 636, 235 N. W. 871, 75 A. L. R. 1205.
The common law right to sue upon the notes is not affected by the remedies provided in the indenture un*495less its provisions exclude this right by express terms or necessary implications. 6 Fletcher, Cyc. Corp., § 2751; Noble v. European Mtg. & Inv. Corp., 19 Del. Ch. 216, 165 A. 157;…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Enoch v. BrandonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Batchelder v. Council Grove Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Continental Guaranty Corp. v. Peoples Bus LineSuperior Court of Delaware · 1922
- Crosthwaite v. Moline Plow Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1924
- Paepcke v. PaineMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Scott v. PlattOregon Supreme Court · 1943
- Edward S. Watts v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Japha v. Delaware Valley Utilities Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1940