Evening journal., 1922-06-20
FISHERIES CASE
DECISION STANDS
Supreme Court Sustains
Chancellor Curtis in
Lewes Litigation
DIRECTORS MUST
HAND BACK MONEY
Special to The Evening Journal.

! Special TO The Evening journal.
DOVER, June 2O.-The suprem,
Court today affirmed the opinion o.
then Chancellor Charles NJ. Curtis il
the appeal case OF william c. Lof-
land, ct al, VS.. Joseph L. Cahall. re.
ceiver OF Lewes Fisheries Company
also an appeal case from the ther
/ Chancellor Curtis. Prior to the an.
nouncement OF the decree by the
court. Harry Ridsely, attorney foi
! Cahall, asked that Frank s. Cotter
administrator Of the estate OF VIII
liam c. Lohand, deceased. be made a
party to the suit. which was ordered
! by the court.
Chief Justice Pennewill announced
the decision OF the court witho out
reading the opinion affirming the
decision OF the Chancellor,
After dwelling at length on the
case as TO the acquisition OF the
fishing plants, steamers. etc. the
owning OF stock by the directors
and the issuing Of shares to them
selves. the Court said:
We have not thought II neces-
sarw, under our view of the case, to
discuss or even refer to many OF
the authorities cited by counsel.
Such discussion would unduly and
unnecessarily extend this opinion.
The leading cases cited in the
briefs were considered by the Chan
cellor ard reference thereto may be
found in his opinion delivered in the
court below.
while the court have been COM
PEELED to decide against the appeal
lants because OF certain unlawful
acts. it is proper and just TO say that
they performed many acts. as direc-
tors, that were OF much benefit to the
stockholders. The remarkable sue
cess Of the company was due very
largely to their efforts, and IL is un-
fortunate that some of their acts
were illegal.
1t was strongly urged at the ar
gument that an affirmanoe OF the
chancellor's decree would work a
great and undeserved hardship on
the appellants, but we think hard
ship Is more apparent than real.
They were clearly not entitled to sal
aries or compensation for extra ser
vices claimed to have been rendered
for oil payments made to them on
such account were gifts surely. They
paid nothing for the stock, the divi-
fends on which they must return
to the company, except the sum OF
S10.129. which they will receive
credit for. They have advanced no.
oney that will not be returned.
I'd will sustain no loss except in
profits. represented by dividends
which they are not entitled to re-
ceive. We find no error in the de-
cree of the court below"
The state Supreme Court con-
vened this morning with all the
Judges present. The calender Of
cases was first gone over and out of
the twelve scheduled for argument,
but two we're marked for trial. the
first being cases Of the Philadel-
phia and Reading Railway Co. VS..
Green and Finn, Inc. and John
G. Luke, ct. al. argument being to-
day. John w. Huxley, Jr, Is counsel
for the Railway Company and ID.
O. Hastings and A. j. Stockley for
Green and Finn, who won a ver-
dict in the Superior Court from
which an appeal was taken.
The second case marked for argu-
ment. to be heard tomorrow. is that
of the Maryland. Delaware and Nir-
ginIa Railway Company vs.. Joseph
l.. Marshall. John Biggs represents
the Railroad Company, and ID. ].
Layton and j. NJ. Tunnel represent
Marshall.
One case in which a decree was
handed down was that of Harry
Orenstein vs.. Max Kahn, being an
appeal from the Chancellor in n
real estate deal in Wilmington. in
which the Chancellor held the con-
tract between the parties to he di- .
visible and entered a decree direct ,
ing Orenstein to perform his con-
tract as TO the purchase of the real !
estate. The decree OF the Chancellor /
also provided for transfer OF the !
title to the fixtures used in connec- /
tion with store to orenstein at his /
option. on payment therefore.
Orensteln's appeal from the decree
OF the Chancellor was based on two
grounds That the Court OF Chapc-
ary erred in "decreeing specific per /
formance of a portion OF the con- !
tract and that the contract between ,
Kahn and Orenstein. so far as the
same related to the stock OF mer-
,handise. was dlvisible from the con-
.ract so far as the same related to
he real estate and fixtures. and in
iecreeing specific performance OF
ne same which related to the real
,state."
The Supreme Court reversed
chancellor wolcott's decision in the
'ase.