Use of Duncan v. Richardson

Superior Court of Delaware

Use of Duncan v. Richardson

15 Del. 372

DecidedFebruary 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Del. 372 (Use of Duncan v. Richardson) 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

Use of Duncan v. Richardson, 15 Del. 372 (Del. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Pei: Curiam.

The cases were different. In the other case Duncan had signed his name to the bond, but claimed that his signature was procured by fraudulent representations, made to him at the time, that Rebecca Richardson would sign the same, which he alleged had not been done, her signature being a forgery. Duncan’s signature being admitted in the case referred to and its procurement claimed on account of fraud, the Court properly held that it was a question of fraud for the Court of Chancery and not for the Superior Court. But in the present application Rebecca Richardson denies that it is her signature, and contends that as to her there is no warrant of attorney, and that, therefore, no judgment is entered or could be entered against her, which makes the case clearly cognizable by this Court.

The Court will not, however, determine the question of fact, but it must be passed upon by a jury. Whereupon an issue was ordered to be framed and sent to the jury to try the question of fact.

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

Pei: Curiam.

The cases were different. In the other case Duncan had signed his name to the bond, but claimed that his signature was procured by fraudulent representations, made to him at the time, that Rebecca Richardson would sign the same, which he alleged had not been done, her signature being a forgery. Duncan’s signature being admitted in the case referred to and its procurement claimed on account of fraud, the Court properly held that it was a question of fraud for the Court of Chancery and not for the Superior Court. But in the present application Rebecca Richardson denies that it is her signature, and contends that as to her there is no warrant of attorney, and that, therefore, no judgment is entered or could be entered against her, which makes the case clearly cognizable by this Court.

The Court will not, however, determine the question of fact, but it must be passed upon by a jury. Whereupon an issue was ordered to be framed and sent to the jury to try the question of fact.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Del. 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/use-of-duncan-v-richardson-delsuperct-1895.