From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HUTCHINSON v. FISH ENGINEERING CORP., ET AL

Supreme Court of Delaware
Sep 14, 1965
213 A.2d 447 (Del. 1965)

Opinion

September 14, 1965.

Upon appeal and cross-appeal from judgment of the Court of Chancery of New Castle County.

Howard M. Handelman, of Bayard, Brill, Russell Handelman, Wilmington, and Leonard J. Meyberg, C. Thomas Fizzolio and Carl Q. Christol, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff below, appellant.

Arthur G. Connolly and Januar D. Bove, Jr., of Connolly, Bove Lodge, Wilmington, and Robert F. Campbell, of Andrews, Kurth, Campbell Jones, Houston, Tex., for Fish Engineering Corp. cross-appellant.

John Van Brunt, of Killoran Van Brunt, Wilmington, for Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp., defendant below, appellee.

WOLCOTT, Chief Justice, and CAREY and HERRMANN, JJ., sitting.


The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the Court of Chancery of New Castle County resolving the rights of the parties in certain patents. The defendant The Fish Engineering Corporation appeals from an order denying its petition for allowance of attorneys' fees and disbursements.

The controversy regarding the patent rights was fully tried below. The Chancellor's findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth at length at 42 Del. Ch. 21, 203 A.2d 53.

Other opinions in this litigation appear at 38 Del. Ch. 414, 153 A.2d 594, appeal dismissed 39 Del. Ch. 215, 162 A.2d 722; and 41 Del. Ch. 134, 189 A.2d 664.

After examination of the record, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the Chancellor's factual findings. See Nardo v. Nardo, Del., 209 A.2d 905, 911-912 (1965). We are also of the opinion that the Chancellor's conclusions and the reasons therefor are correctly and adequately stated.

As to the petition for fees and disbursements, the Chancellor's opinion appears at 42 Del. Ch. 116, 204 A.2d 752. The reasons given justify, we think, the result reached. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's action.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied and the judgment below is affirmed.


Summaries of

HUTCHINSON v. FISH ENGINEERING CORP., ET AL

Supreme Court of Delaware
Sep 14, 1965
213 A.2d 447 (Del. 1965)
Case details for

HUTCHINSON v. FISH ENGINEERING CORP., ET AL

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR J.L. HUTCHINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE FISH ENGINEERING…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Sep 14, 1965

Citations

213 A.2d 447 (Del. 1965)
213 A.2d 447

Citing Cases

OIL GAS VENTURES, ET AL. v. CHEYENNE OIL, ET AL

equitable principle relied on has application in the case at bar, I am satisfied that under the circumstances…

Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.

Thus, it cannot be said that the testimony of plaintiffs' expert was not helpful to the Court. As to…