Smyrna times., 1922-06-28
SUPREME COORT IN SESSION
At DOVER CONSIDERS CASES
DECISION OF CHANCELLOR UP
HELD LEWES FISHERIES CASE
Court, After Hearing Two Cases, Ad-
jOurned Until July 25-ResOlu-
ton on Death of L. | Handy


In the Supreme Court Tuesday morn
ing the case of the Maryland, Della
ware and Virginia Railway Co., VS..
Joseph L. Marshall, ct al, being a
suit for damages from which occurred
August 5, 1917 in Lewes and Rehoboth
hundreds was continued until July 25,
to which time the Supreme Court adj
journed While it was not definitely
stated that a settlement of the case
had been made, yet it was strongly
intimated that such would be the case
by the time the court meets in July.
The loss at the fire is alleged to have
been $4,000. Supreme Court con-
vened in Dover at 1870 o'clock Tues
day morning, all members present.
The calendar of cases was first gone
over and out of the twelve scheduled
! for argument, but two were marked
for hearing. The first was that of
Philadelphia and Reading Railway Co.
VS.. Green and Finn, Inc, and John G..
Lake ct al. The second case to be
argued was that of the Maryland, Del
aware and Virginia Railway Co. VS..
Joseph l.. Marshall. The two cases
in which DEGREES were handed down
were.
Harry Orenstein VS.. Max Kahn, an
appeal from the Chancellor in regard
to real estate deal in the city of
Wilmington in which the Chancellor
held the contract between the parties
to be divisible and entered a decree
directing Orenstein to perform his
contract as to the purchase of the
real estate. The decree of the Chan
cellor also provided for the transfer
of the title to the fixtures used in con-
nection with the store to Orenstein
at his option, on payment therefore.
Orenstein'S 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
Orenstein so far as the same related
to the stock of merchandise was divis-
able from the contracs 80 far as the
same related to the real estate and
fixtures; and in decreeing specie per-
form ance of that portion of the same
which related 70 lie real estate"
The appeal from the Chancellor
sustained.
Lewes Fisheries Case Sustained
The second decree was in the cast
of William C. Lofand ct al. VS.. JOS
eph l.. Cahall, receiver of Lewes Fish
cries Co., also being an appeal from
the Chancellor (Curtis). Prior to th'
| announcement of the decree by thu
r court, Henry Ridgely, attorney TO
Cahall, asked that Frank S. COttel
r administrator of the estate of Viii
: liam c. Lofand, deceased, be made
t party to the suit, which was Ordcre
h by the court.
Chief Justice Pennewill orally de
livered the opinion of the court, tn
decision of the Chancellor being al
s fiImed The opinion stated:
"While the court has been CON
PEELED to decide against the appea
lants because of certain unlawful act
! it is proper and just to say that the
performed many acts, as director
that were of much benefit to the stocl
= holders. The remarkable success {
5. the company was due very largely
their efforts, and it is unfortunat
that some of their acts were illegal.
1t was strongly urged at the argl
he ment that an affirmance of Il
er Chancellor's decree would work
great and undeserved hardship on Il
appellants, but we think hardship
na more apparent than real. They we