Legal Opinion
Claphan v. Barber
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided December 5, 1903PublishedCited by 3 opinions
This bill is filed to compel the specific performance of an alleged contract between these parties for the sale and purchase of a house in Woodbury, New Jersey.
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, Y. C.
On March 14th* 1903, Mignonette E. Barber signed the following paper:
“Woodbury 3/14/03.
“Received of Arthur W. Olaphan fifty dollars in part payment in the purchase of house No. 35 Center St. Woodbury N. J. .
“$50.00. Mignonette F. Barber.”
*551Mignonette E. Barber declines to make a conveyance of the said property and now invokes the statute of fraud's as a defence to this suit. It is said that the property is insufficiently described. I am of the opinion that a number of a house on a street is a very good description of a house so designated with its curtilage. It is true that no…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Matlack v. ArendNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Carlsen v. CarlsenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- Bernstein v. RosenzweigNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948