Delaware Chancery Reports; Reports of Cases Determined in the Court of Chancery and on Appeals Therefrom in the Supreme Court of Delaware Volume 5

Delaware Chancery Reports; Reports of Cases Determined in the Court of Chancery and on Appeals Therefrom in the Supreme Court of Delaware Volume 5

List price: US$19.33

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1889 edition. Excerpt: ...and direct an issue, nor can he order a writ of lunacy. This is not the case where those filing the bill are proper parties, but not all of those interested, --where, upon the objection being made the chancellor would retain the bill, and direct the making or adding of the new interested parties; nor can he direct the writ of lunacy, as the statute points out how it shall be initiated. The objection made by defendants is vital to the character of the bill, and can therefore be made at the hearing, and if vital cannot be granted on terms--such as paying the costs. They have not presented a case in which the chancellor has jurisdiction. The information cannot be amended in the particular of parties. N o one can be joined with the attorney general, --if he can sue, he sues alone, --and therefore it follows, if they have misconceived their remedy, they must not only have their information dismissed, but are answerable for all the costs of the case. D. M Bates, with whom was George H. Bates, for complainant, in opposition to the motion to dismiss: I. This is not a proceeding under that branch of the urisdiction of the court which concerns the case of idiots and lunatics and the administration of their estates pursuant to our statute. That is what is commonly called a proceeding in lunacy. i This is a suit addressed to the general equity jurisdiction of the court, for the redress fi a wrong to John Thompson, --differing nothing as to the jurisdiction invoked from any ordinary suit in equity, --diffiering'only in the circumstance that Thompson being not mentally competent to sue, it is necessary that another should represent him. And, according to settled principles and practice in England and in this State, his proper representative (in the absence...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 226 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 413g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236981642
  • 9781236981646