Crow v. Cann
43 A. 839, 18 Del. 208, 2 Penne. 208, 1899 Del. LEXIS 31
Opinion
The exceptions are fatal. The statute (Rev. Code, Chap. 101, See. 6, p. 770) is mandatory, and prescribes in terms what the judgment shall be; that is, that the plaintiff shall have judgment for the possession of the premises, and for his costs. The verdict is in direct violation of the provisions of that statute.
The judgment below is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Crow v. Cann, 43 A. 839, 18 Del. 208, 2 Penne. 208, 1899 Del. LEXIS 31 (Del. Ct. App. 1899).
43 A. 839 (Crow v. Cann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Giandonancio v. O'Donnell
103 A. 353 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1918)