Legal Opinion

Joachim v. Belfus

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided September 5, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The history of this litigation is written in 107 N.J. Eq. 240 and 108 N.J. Eq. 199. Now it turns out that the deeds purporting to release the easement, over which there has been so much fuss, were unnecessary; that the easement is not and was not an encumbrance at the making of the contract, and was not a valid objection to the title at the final hearing, although both parties assumed that it was an encumbrance and that it had been released. Upon the motion to be relieved, upon the assumption that the easement was an encumbrance and upon a finding that it had not been released, it was ruled…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Scull v. EilenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1923
  2. Cadwalader v. BaileySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891
  3. Jennings v. BaroffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1929
  4. Joachim v. BelfusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
  5. Seymour & Sage v. LewisNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1861

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ballantyne House Associates v. City of NewarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
  2. North Dade Water Co. v. Florida State Turnpike Auth.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  3. Coggins v. ShillingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
  4. Brighton Const., Inc. v. L & J ENTERPRISES, INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API