Badenhausen Co. v. Kidwell
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Receivership of International Re-Insurance Corp. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1946)
- Lichens Co. v. Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1944)
- Public Service Holding Corp. v. Killoran (Del. 1942)
- Carpenter v. Griffith Mortgage Corp. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1934)
- Mitchell v. Maurer (9th Cir. 1934)
- State v. Surety Corp. of America (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1932)
- Jagodzinski v. Silicon Valley Innovation Company, LLC (Court of Chancery of Delaware 2015)
- Jones v. Maxwell Motor Co. (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1921)
- Ward v. Foulkrod (3d Cir. 1920)
- Wheeler v. Badenhausen Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1919)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
After a careful consideration of the record— the pleadings, admissions and evidence — and the arguments of counsel in this case, the Court is of the opinion that a fatal variance between the bill and the decree does not exist, and that the Chancellor was warranted in finding that the complainant below is a stockholder of the corporation respondent below, and that the latter is insolvent. The decree of the Chancellor should not, therefore, be vacated but affirmed.
If after the decree of this Court shall be certified to the Court below, a proper showing should be made to the Chancellor, he doubtless would, under the powers vested in him, make such modification of his decree as may be necessary to authorize the receivers appointed by him to continue the business of the corporation respondent below for the express purpose of conserving its assets and restoring it to a condition of solvency.
Or if it should be shown that the corporation respondent below has attained a condition in which it can meet its obligations in the usual course of business, or that there is a reasonable prospect that its business can be successfully continued, notwithstanding any deficiency of assets, the Chancellor would discharge the receivers and permit the corporation respondent below to resume its business.
The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.