Fidance v. Giordano
| Citation | 237 A.2d 393,43 Del.Ch. 477 |
| Parties | Anthony V. FIDANCE, Jr., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Matthew J. GIORDANO, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1967 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Courtney H. Cummings, Jr., of Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, for appellant.
William J. Wier, Jr., of Connolly, Bove & Lodge, Wilmington, for appellee.
After a careful review of all the evidence, we are of the opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed for the following reasons:
1. There are ambiguities in the written agreement, and the Chancellor was accordingly justified in admitting oral evidence.
2. There was ample evidence to justify the Chancellor's basic ruling that appellant paid $6000 to appellee to purchase a one-half interest in the partnership; that the 'leasehold improvements' were incorrectly included in the balance sheet because the accountant was unacquainted with the facts; and that this alleged asset was not a firm asset. No other item in the account is presently questioned.
3. The refusal of interest and counsel fees was, under the facts of this case, well within the Chancellor's discretion and does not constitute reversible error.
The judgment below will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newnam v. Board of Ed. of Mount Pleasant School Dist.
...dispute, we find that the word 'grievance' is ambiguous and so a hearing is necessary to determine its meaning. Fidance v. Giordano, Del.Supr., 237 A.2d 393 (1967). If the Court finds that there was no intent to include in the grievance procedure the kind of controversy here involved, that ......