Dobbin v. Plager
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, who filed the following opinion: “This suit is to compel the defendant to convey to the complainant her property 216 Prince street, Newark, for $11,000 cash, in accordance with her agreement in writing to that effect.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, who filed the following opinion: “This suit is to compel the defendant to convey to the complainant her property 216 Prince street, Newark, for $11,000 cash, in accordance with her agreement in writing to that effect. “The answer is a categorical denial of the allegations of the bill, with the qualification that the defendant denies ‘that she voluntarily and consciously agreed to sell the property for1 $11,000.’ “The meaning of this ambiguous phraseology was brought out at the trial where it was set up- that…
1Per curiam
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Backes.
For affirmance—Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, Katzenbach, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson—15. For reversal—None.
2Cited by2 opinions
- In Re the Estate of Santa PerroneSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1950
- D'Angelo v. Rand Development Corp. (In re Mastapeter)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · 1985