Hughes v. Diamond Match Co.
39 A. 772, 17 Del. 140, 1 Penne. 140, 1897 Del. LEXIS 50, 1897 Del. Super. LEXIS 3
Opinion
We think this is not a matter of description, but that it is substituting and making an entirely new and distinct party. We therefore refuse the motion to amend.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hughes v. Diamond Match Co., 39 A. 772, 17 Del. 140, 1 Penne. 140, 1897 Del. LEXIS 50, 1897 Del. Super. LEXIS 3 (Del. Ct. App. 1897).
39 A. 772 (Hughes v. Diamond Match Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Parish
33 N.E.2d 835 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1941)
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)
Allen v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad
102 A. 985 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1918)