Legal Opinion

Heinig v. Smellow

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1946No. Docket 147/106PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Complainants have filed their bill to compel the defendants, husband and wife, to specifically perform a written contract to sell real estate in Atlantic City, title to which they hold by the entirety. Defendants move to strike the bill for the single reason that the agreement to sell "was not acknowledged as required by the statutes of New Jersey." Defendants contend that this court has never decreed and should not now decree specific performance by a married woman of a contract to sell real property not formally acknowledged by her before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Thomas v. FlanaganNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  2. Vacca v. WilkensNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  3. Celendano v. BlazejewskiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  4. Mahaney v. MahaneyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
  5. Reade v. LeslieNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1945

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Norton v. MillerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
  2. Vitra Seal Co. v. JaycoxNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API