Case ID: a2d_262/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NOS. 408 AND 410 KING STREET and No. 411 French Street, containing approximately 6,702 square feet of land; Liebman and Company, formerly known as Mariam Realty Co., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Owner; and unknown owners, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. NOS. 500, 502 AND 504 KING STREET, containing approximately 12,208 square feet of land, and Nos. 503, 505 and 507 French Street, containing approximately 6,540 square feet of land; Samuel Cohen and Anita C. Cohen, his wife, Sadie Toumarkine and Sol Toumarkine, her husband, Commercial Trust Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Trustee, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Delaware.
    Dec. 30, 1969.
    Reargument Denied Jan. 19, 1970.
    William D. Bailey, Jr., of Bayard, Brill & Handelman, Wilmington, for defendants below, appellants.
    Januar D. Bove, Jr., of Connelly, Bove & Lodge, and Morris Cohen, of Cohen & Cohen, Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellee.
    WOLCOTT, Chief Justice, CAREY, Justice, and MARVEL, Vice-Chancellor, sitting.
   PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from Superior Court, the defendants below ask us to reverse the dismissal of their counterclaims and the entry of judgment on all defenses interposed to the condemnation of certain properties in Wilmington. The properties are included in a ten-block area which the Wilmington City Council has declared to be a slum area. This action was brought under T. 31 Del.C. Ch. 45.

The arguments presented to us are the same as those raised in the Court below, and decided in appellee’s favor.' After careful review of the record, we have concluded that the contentions have been adequately discussed and correctly determined in the opinion of the Court below, reported in 254 A.2d 856.

We accordingly affirm.