Lurtz v. Hardcastle

15 Del. 450
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedOctober 15, 1894
StatusPublished

This text of 15 Del. 450 (Lurtz v. Hardcastle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lurtz v. Hardcastle, 15 Del. 450 (Del. Ct. App. 1894).

Opinion

Grubb, J.,

(presiding in the absence of Lore, C. J.) delivered the opinion of the Court:

Owing to the unavoidable absence of the Chief Justice, the duty is devolved upon me to announce that after a careful consideration of this case we are unanimously of the opinion that the established rules and principles of law which govern the Court in granting or refusing relief by mandamus will not permit this Court to award the peremptory writ prayed for by the relator and on the ground that in our judgment, in view of the law and facts presented in this particular case said writ if granted would prove nugatory and unavailing.

It is, therefore, ordered by the Court that the rule to show cause why said peremptory writ should not issue be discharged.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Del. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lurtz-v-hardcastle-delsuperct-1894.