Moeckel v. Delaware Engineering & Design Corp.

Supreme Court of Delaware

Moeckel v. Delaware Engineering & Design Corp.

366 A.2d 507, 1976 Del. LEXIS 522

DecidedOctober 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 366 A.2d 507 (Moeckel v. Delaware Engineering & Design Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moeckel v. Delaware Engineering & Design Corp., 366 A.2d 507, 1976 Del. LEXIS 522 (Del. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this complaint seeking payment for services rendered, the Superior Court denied, without opinion, defendant’s motion to stay the action pending disposition of a civil action in Pennsylvania.

It appears to the Court that an action involving the same parties and the same issues had been started in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County before this suit was filed. The controversy is part of a larger dispute involving Pepsi-Cola Distributing Co. of Delaware Valley (for whose benefit the services performed by both parties to this suit were provided) and the Borough of West Chester Public Works Department (which allegedly furnished certain information used by the parties here). A decision in Pennsylvania, where all parties are before the same Court, should surely simplify the issues presented in Delaware. Cf. Lanova Corporation v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 5 Del.Super. 593, 64 A.2d 419 (1949).

In our view, the motion is governed by application of the principles announced by this Court in United Engines, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corporation, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 221 (1970), and McWane Cast Iron P. Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman E. Co., Del.Supr., 263 A.2d 281 (1971). Discretion should be freely exercised in favor of the stay and since it was not, we conclude that there was abuse. It follows that the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this complaint seeking payment for services rendered, the Superior Court denied, without opinion, defendant’s motion to stay the action pending disposition of a civil action in Pennsylvania.

It appears to the Court that an action involving the same parties and the same issues had been started in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County before this suit was filed. The controversy is part of a larger dispute involving Pepsi-Cola Distributing Co. of Delaware Valley (for whose benefit the services performed by both parties to this suit were provided) and the Borough of West Chester Public Works Department (which allegedly furnished certain information used by the parties here). A decision in Pennsylvania, where all parties are before the same Court, should surely simplify the issues presented in Delaware. Cf. Lanova Corporation v. Atlas Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 5 Del.Super. 593, 64 A.2d 419 (1949).

In our view, the motion is governed by application of the principles announced by this Court in United Engines, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corporation, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 221 (1970), and McWane Cast Iron P. Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman E. Co., Del.Supr., 263 A.2d 281 (1971). Discretion should be freely exercised in favor of the stay and since it was not, we conclude that there was abuse. It follows that the judgment of the Superior Court must be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 A.2d 507, 1976 Del. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moeckel-v-delaware-engineering-design-corp-del-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack