Bellah v. Hilles
43 A. 89, 18 Del. 34, 2 Penne. 34, 1899 Del. LEXIS 6
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided March 30, 1899·No. Foreign Attachment No. 134·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
held that as foreign attachment was only to compel appearance and that as the defendant had appeared by putting in special bail, under the express terms of the statute, the case proceeded as in cases commenced by summons, and that the plaintiff [35] was therefore entitled to amend.
Waples and wife vs. McIlvaine’s Admr., 5 Harr., 381; McColley vs. Collins, 5 Harr., 391; Benjamin’s Executors vs. Boyce, 3 Harr., 315; Collins vs. Townsend, 2 Harr., 317.
Amendment allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bellah v. Hilles, 43 A. 89, 18 Del. 34, 2 Penne. 34, 1899 Del. LEXIS 6 (Del. Ct. App. 1899).
43 A. 89 (Bellah v. Hilles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Canaday v. Superior Court
119 A.2d 347 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1955)
Brainard v. Canaday
112 A.2d 862 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1955)
John R. Hitchens, Inc. v. Phillips Packing Co.
42 Del. 393 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1943)
Hackett v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
165 A. 332 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1933)
Console Master Speaker Corp. v. Muskegon Wood Products Corp.
33 Del. 604 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1928)
Lutz v. Roberts Cotton Oil Co.
82 A. 601 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1912)