Badenhausen Co. v. Kidwell

107 A. 297, 12 Del. Ch. 370, 1919 Del. LEXIS 9
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedJune 27, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 107 A. 297 (Badenhausen Co. v. Kidwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Badenhausen Co. v. Kidwell, 107 A. 297, 12 Del. Ch. 370, 1919 Del. LEXIS 9 (Del. 1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a careful consideration of the record— the pleadings, admissions and evidence — and the arguments of counsel in this case, the Court is of the opinion that a fatal variance between the bill and the decree does not exist, and that the Chancellor was warranted in finding that the complainant below is a stockholder of the corporation respondent below, and that the latter is insolvent. The decree of the Chancellor should not, therefore, be vacated but affirmed.

If after the decree of this Court shall be certified to the Court below, a proper showing should be made to the Chancellor, he doubtless would, under the powers vested in him, make such modification of his decree as may be necessary to authorize the receivers appointed by him to continue the business of the corporation respondent below for the express purpose of conserving its assets and restoring it to a condition of solvency.

Or if it should be shown that the corporation respondent below has attained a condition in which it can meet its obligations in the usual course of business, or that there is a reasonable prospect that its business can be successfully continued, notwithstanding any deficiency of assets, the Chancellor would discharge the receivers and permit the corporation respondent below to resume its business.

The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Receivership of International Re-Insurance Corp.
48 A.2d 529 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1946)
Lichens Co. v. Standard Commercial Tobacco Co.
40 A.2d 447 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1944)
Public Service Holding Corp. v. Killoran
24 A.2d 584 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1942)
Carpenter v. Griffith Mortgage Corp.
172 A. 447 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1934)
Mitchell v. Maurer
69 F.2d 233 (Ninth Circuit, 1934)
State v. Surety Corp. of America
162 A. 852 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1932)
Jones v. Maxwell Motor Co.
115 A. 312 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1921)
Ward v. Foulkrod
264 F. 627 (Third Circuit, 1920)
Wheeler v. Badenhausen Co.
260 F. 991 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A. 297, 12 Del. Ch. 370, 1919 Del. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/badenhausen-co-v-kidwell-del-1919.