Legal Opinion
Hallinger v. Zimmerman
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided April 8, 1902PublishedCited by 3 opinions
On order to show causo why the defendant should not be attached for contempt.
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, V. C.
The ground for this order is the alleged disobedience by the defendant of a decree in this court made in a suit for specific performance brought by Hallinger against Zimmerman. The decree directed that Hallinger should execute and deliver to Zimmerman a deed for premises in Burlington, New Jersey, clear of *101all encumbrances up to the 1st day of September, 1897, and the said Zimmerman was to pay to Hallinger certain amounts of money mentioned in the decree. Hallinger tendered a deed for the premises which he was to convey in Burlington, and Zimmerman has refused to pay the several…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barlow v. Saint Nicholas National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Hohenstatt v. City of BridgetonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
- Kern v. TowsleyNew York Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hodge v. WetzlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
- Dey v. DeySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
- United States v. 25.936 Acres of LandDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1944