Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-06-20
CHANCELLOR UPHELD
N LEWES FISHERIES
Decision by Former Chancellor
Curtis Found Without Error
by Supreme Court.

Special Dispatch TO Every Evening.
Dover, June ?o.-Thc State Supreme
Court convened here at 1890 O'Clock
this morning. all members present.
The calendar OF cases was first gone
over and out of the twelve scheduled
for argument. hut two We're marked
for hearing. The first that OF Phil
adelphia and Reading Railway Co. VS..
Green and Finn. Inc, and John G..
Lake. ct al. argument being today.
The second case. to be argued tomor-
row, IL that OF the Maryland. Della
ware and Virginia Railway Co. vs..
Joseph l.. Marshall The two cases
IN which DEGREES were handed down
were.
Harry Orenstcin vs.. Max Kahn, an
appeal from the Chancellor In regard
60 "A real estate deal in the city Of
Wilmington In which the Chancellor
held tho contract between the parties
60 hc divisible and entered a decree
directing Orenstcin To perform his
contract as 10 the purchase OF the
real estate. The decree of the Chancel-
lur also provided for the transfer of
the title To the fixtures used in con-
NJ his option. on payment therefore.
Orcnsteins appeal from the decree
OF the Chancellor was based on two
grounds that the Court of Chancery
erred in "decreeing specific perform
anCe of a portion OF the contract and
that the contract between Kahn and
Orenstrin, So far as the same related
70 the stock OF merchandise was divis-
able from the contract so far as the
same related To the real estate and
fxtures and In decreeing specific per-
formance Of that portion of the same
which realted TO the real estate"
The appeal from the Chancellor
sustained.
The second decree was in the case
Of William G. Lofland ct al, vs.. Jo-
seph l.. Cahall. receiver of Lewes
Fisheries Co. also being an appeal
from the Chancellor (Curtis). Prior
to. the announcement OF the decree by
the court. Henry Ridgely. attorney
Tor Cahall. asked that Frank :. Cot
ter. administrator OF the estate of
William g. Lofland, deceased. be made
party TO the suit. which was ordered
by the court.
Chief Justice Pennewir orally de-
l.vered the opinion OF the court. the
decision OF the Chancellor being af-
armed The opinion stated:
While the court has been COM
PEELED To decide against the appel
lants because OF certain unlawful
acts. Il Is proper and just 10 say that
they performed many acts. as direc-
tors. that were ot much benefit TO the
stockholders. The remarkable success
uf the company was due very largely
to their efforts. and Il il unfortunate
that some of their acts We're illegal.
1t was strongly urged at the argu-
mont that an atiirmanCe Of the
ChanCellor's decree would work a
great and undeserved hardship ON the
appellants. but We think hardship {,
more apparent than real. They were
not entitled TO salaries or Compensa-
tion FOR extra services claimed TO hav,
been rendered. for all payments mad,
10 them on such account were gift:
purely. They paid nothing for The
stock. the dividends on which they
mus; return TO the company, except
the sum Of s1O.l29. which they will re.
ceive credit for. Teey have advanced
no money that will not be returned
and will sustain no loss except il
prohts, represented by dividend.
which they We're not entitled 10 re
Ce.ve.
we find no error In the decree o
the court below"
Resolutions adopted by the bar o
New castle county on the death O
/. Irving Handy were presented b,
William =. kurtz and D. J. Rinehard
and accepted after appropriate remark
by Chief Justice PennewIl