Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Flanagan

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 26, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On April 3d 1925, complainant's assignor entered into a contract to purchase real property. The agreement was reduced to writing, and the complainant seeks specific performance thereof. Two reasons are assigned by the defendants for their motion, one being that the bill alleges upon its face that the defendants have not at any time been ready, willing and able to convey to the complainant. With this I have no difficulty. The defendants seek to draw the conclusion from this language that the complainant means only that the defendants have never been able to make title. That is not so. It means…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stein v. FrancisNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1919
  2. Meeks v. BickfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1924
  3. Koperski v. WiraNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  4. Meeks v. BickfordNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1923

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Phillips v. PhillipsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
  2. Dimet Proprietary, Ltd. v. Industrial Metal Protectives, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1952
  3. Jones v. McGivernSupreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  4. Piper v. PiperNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
  5. Heinig v. SmellowNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946

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

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

Powered by the Exa API