Legal Opinion

Baron v. Buermann

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 28, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This bill is to compel an exchange of properties — the defendant's property in Newark for the complainants' in and adjoining Morristown. The defendant refused to go through with the deal because, as he claims, it was falsely represented to him that the complainants' tract, an estate of about forty acres, for the most part lies in the town of Morristown, whereas only a fraction, about eight and one-half acres, is within the town limits. The sharply contested question is whether the representation was made. If made, it was false, material and injurious. The defendant, his broker and his lawyer,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. De Witt v. Van SickleNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
  2. Condon v. SandhoweNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  3. Industrial Savings & Loan Co. v. PlummerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  4. Miller v. ChetwoodNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1839
  5. Freedman v. Kensico Realty Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Berger v. Harrison Improvement Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  2. Herder v. GarmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  3. Navilio v. SicaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API