Legal Opinion
Field v. Layton & Layton, Inc.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided May 2, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The demands of the complainants are purely legal demands, two of them being upon promissory notes held by Field and Pyle respectively and the third being Upon a claim for legal services rendered by Sauerwein. Certainly a court of law is the ordinarily appropriate forum in which to seek satisfaction of such demands.
A court of equity has no jurisdiction to entertain suits for the enforcement of purely legal claims unless their' attempted assertion can be brought under some one of the recognized heads of equitable cognizance. Our statute provides that the Court of Chancery “shall…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hamilton v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Bradley Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. HeyburnWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Roanoke Guano Co. v. SaundersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Southern Steel Co. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. McKnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- International Business MacHines Corp. v. Comdisco, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1991
- Wise v. Delaware Steeplechase & Race Ass'nSupreme Court of Delaware · 1945
- Scott v. KaySupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
- Wilmington Trust Company v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Delaware · 1974
- Hall v. John S. Isaacs & Sons Farms, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.