Trush v. Shields

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Trush v. Shields

162 A. 38, 19 Del. Ch. 15, 1932 Del. Ch. LEXIS 43

CourtCourt of Chancery of Delaware

DecidedJuly 25, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A. 38 (Trush v. Shields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trush v. Shields, 162 A. 38, 19 Del. Ch. 15, 1932 Del. Ch. LEXIS 43 (Del. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor :

The petition for leave to intervene should be denied. Ehrenstrom v. Phillips, 9 Del. Ch. 74, 77 A. 80, is decisive upon the question. The fact that a vendee of land who acquired title with notice of a prior outstanding contract of purchase in another will be required specifically to perform the latter’s contract, as was held in Long v. Chandler, et al., 11 Del. Ch. 125, 98 A. 189, has no bearing upon the question which Ehrenstrom v. Phillips, supra, decides. That case, I may say, recognizes the propriety of the complainant’s joining the rival purchaser as a party defendant. ■ It would be well for the complainant to consider whether it would be prudent for him- to proceed with the cause until after he has made the petitioner a party.

The pending petition, however, must be dismissed.

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

The Chancellor :

The petition for leave to intervene should be denied. Ehrenstrom v. Phillips, 9 Del. Ch. 74, 77 A. 80, is decisive upon the question. The fact that a vendee of land who acquired title with notice of a prior outstanding contract of purchase in another will be required specifically to perform the latter’s contract, as was held in Long v. Chandler, et al., 11 Del. Ch. 125, 98 A. 189, has no bearing upon the question which Ehrenstrom v. Phillips, supra, decides. That case, I may say, recognizes the propriety of the complainant’s joining the rival purchaser as a party defendant. ■ It would be well for the complainant to consider whether it would be prudent for him- to proceed with the cause until after he has made the petitioner a party.

The pending petition, however, must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 38, 19 Del. Ch. 15, 1932 Del. Ch. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trush-v-shields-delch-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack