Crow v. Cann

43 A. 839, 18 Del. 208, 2 Penne. 208, 1899 Del. LEXIS 31
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided June 9, 1899·No. Certiorari No. 36·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Lore, C. J.:

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)