Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp.

213 A.2d 447, 42 Del. Ch. 435, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 725, 1965 Del. LEXIS 170
Court of Chancery of Delaware·Decided September 14, 1965·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the

Court of Chancery of New Castle County resolving the rights of the [436] parties in certain patents. The defendant The Fish Engineering Corporation appeals from an order denying its petition for allowance of attorneys’ fees and disbursements.

The controversy regarding the patent rights was fully tried below. The Chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth at length at 42 Del.Ch. 21, 203 A.2d 53.1

After examination of the record, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the Chancellor’s factual findings. See Nardo v. Nardo, Del., 209 A.2d 905, 911-912 (1965). We are also of the opinion that the Chancellor’s conclusions and the reasons therefor are correctly and adequately stated.

As to the petition for fees and disbursements, the Chancellor’s opinion appears at 42 Del.Ch. 116, 204 A.2d 752. The reasons given justify, we think, the result reached. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s action.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and the judgment below is affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp., 213 A.2d 447, 42 Del. Ch. 435, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 725, 1965 Del. LEXIS 170 (Del. Ct. App. 1965).

213 A.2d 447 (Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Division of Child Support Enforcement v. Smallwood
526 A.2d 1353 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1987)
Oil & Gas Ventures, Inc. v. Cheyenne Oil Corp.
222 A.2d 312 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1966)
Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corporation
213 A.2d 447 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1965)