Cramer v. Mooney
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, answer and proofs. The complainant files this bill against James Mooney, the ■assignee of a contract for the sale of two lots of land in Stockton township, in Camden county, to compel specific performance of •the contract, by a decree that' the defendant accept 'a deed and pay the balance of the purchase-money, and that he be restrained from prosecuting his suit to recover the portion which he has .already paid.
Read the full summary
On bill, answer and proofs. The complainant files this bill against James Mooney, the ■assignee of a contract for the sale of two lots of land in Stockton township, in Camden county, to compel specific performance of •the contract, by a decree that' the defendant accept 'a deed and pay the balance of the purchase-money, and that he be restrained from prosecuting his suit to recover the portion which he has .already paid. The agreement is in the' words and figurés following : “ This Agreement made the .first day of April, in the year of our Lord one -thousand eight hundred and ninety (1890),…
1Opinion of the Court
Grey, V. C.
The first point taken by the defendant is his contention that ■the contract of sale is a unilateral agreement, which the defendant may, if he desires, enforce against the complainant, but which-■the complainant may not compel the defendant to observe.
Whatever might have been the construction-of the contract standing barely upon its expressed terms, the subsequent circumstances and the dealings of the parties with the subject have established a mutual contract for the sale and purchase of the lots in question. By the terms of the written contract the complainant who signed it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McTague v. Sea Isle City Lot & Building Ass'n No. 3Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. HeadleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
- Rapps v. TulenkoNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- Westervelt v. CiarlettaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944