Case Name: Harrison E. Fryberger, vs. Consolidated Electric and Gas Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, Central Public Utility Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and The Argus Corporation, formerly Central Public Service Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware
Court: Delaware Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1938-08-16
Citations: 23 Del. Ch. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harrison E. Fryberger, vs. Consolidated Electric and Gas Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, Central Public Utility Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and The Argus Corporation, formerly Central Public Service Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Chancery Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
Harrison E. Fryberger, vs. Consolidated Electric and Gas Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, Central Public Utility Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and The Argus Corporation, formerly Central Public Service Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
New Castle,
Aug. 16, 1938.
Caleb R. Layton, 3rd, for complainant.
Harrison E. Fryberger, of New York City, in propia persona.
Arthur G. Logan, of the firm of Marvel, Morford, Ward & Logan, and Arthur M. Boat, of the firm of Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, of New York City, for defendants other than the Argus Corporation.
E. Ennalls Berl, of the firm of Ward & Gray, of Wilmington, for defendant Argus Corporation.

Opinion:
The Chancellor
: A demurrer was sustained to the complainant's bill. See 22 Del. Ch. 357, 2 A. 2d 92. He now asks leave to file an amended bill. In my opinion the particulars in which it is now sought to amend the bill are such as if the amended bill is allowed to be filed, the case will be exactly the same as it was when, on demurrer, it was decided to be not maintainable. If the amendment were permitted to be filed and a demurrer were interposed, the court should do no more than repeat its former opinion, except to supplement it by showing that the particulars of amendment made no difference in the case. To allow the amended bill to be filed would, as I view the case, be the equivalent of granting a reargument of the questions which the opinion on the demurer undertook to settle. I do not think the complainant is entitled to a reargument. Accordingly, the requested leave to file the amended bill will be denied.
Order accordingly.