Legal Opinion

Potter v. Hollister

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1889PublishedCited by 6 opinions

On final hearing on bill and answer and proofs taken in open court.

1Opinion of the Court

Van Fleet, V. C.

This is a suit by the vendors of land against the vendee, asking a decree requiring the vendee to specifically perform his contract of purchase. The bill alleges that the contract, which the complainants seek to-have enforced, is in writing. The following is the averment of the bill on that subject:

“ Your orators and the said Uriah S. Hollister, on or about the fifteenth day of September, 1888, entered into an agreement in writing respecting the sale and purchase of the said .land and premises, consisting of certain letters or correspondence, written and signed by the said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Seymour v. DelanceyNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
  2. Osborn v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
  3. Steel & Son v. FifeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Leitner v. BraenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  2. Casriel v. KingNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
  3. Kuskin v. GuttmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  4. Pound v. PleisterNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  5. Grabow v. GelberNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API