Title: Wiley v. Copeland

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

Wiley v. Copeland  349 A.2d 211 (1975) Don C. WILEY, Sr., Defendant below, Appellant, v. Lammot duPont COPELAND, Jr., Plaintiff below, Appellee. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted June 20, 1975. Decided August 18, 1975. William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, for defendant below, appellant. Richard G. Elliott, Jr., of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellee. Before McNEILLY, J., and WRIGHT and TAYLOR, Judges. PER CURIAM: Lammot duPont Copeland, Jr. (Copeland) filed suit in the Court of Chancery against Don C. Wiley, Sr. (Wiley), Jane C. Wiley, Pleasure Petroleum Corp., a Louisiana Corporation, and Fluid Power Pump Co. (Fluid), a Delaware Corporation. Jurisdiction over Wiley was obtained by means of an Order of Sequestration under which Wiley's shares of Fluid stock were sequestered. Wiley filed a motion to quash the Order on the ground that the statute authorizing sequestration violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution in that it permits summary seizure of property without notice *212 and hearing (no issue is raised concerning Copeland's compliance with 10 Del.C. § 366 and Chancery Court Rule 4(b)). The Chancellor denied the motion concluding that the statute was constitutional. We agree for the reasons stated in the Court's unreported letter opinion dated September 6, 1974.[1] See Gordon v. Michel, Del.Ch., 297 A.2d 420 (1972); U. S. Industries, Inc. v. Gregg, 348 F. Supp. 1004 (D.C.Del. 1972); U. S. Industries, Inc. v. Gregg, 58 F.R.D. 469 (D.C.Del.1973); U. S. Industries, Inc., et al. v. Gregg, Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 24, 1975 (D.C.Del.C.A. § 4431); Heitner v. The Greyhound Corporation, et al., unpublished opinion dated May 12, 1975 (Del.Ch.C.A. § 4514). Affirmed.