Coles v. Feeney
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Heard on bill and answer. The bill .is brought for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the testatrix to the defendant Feeney, on-the 26th of December, 1891, by which the testatrix, in consideration of $3,000, agreed to convey to the defendant Feeney a tract of land in Jersey City, of which she was the owner, the-conveyance to be completed on the 26th of January, 1892. The contract was signed by each of the parties.
Read the full summary
Heard on bill and answer. The bill .is brought for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by the testatrix to the defendant Feeney, on-the 26th of December, 1891, by which the testatrix, in consideration of $3,000, agreed to convey to the defendant Feeney a tract of land in Jersey City, of which she was the owner, the-conveyance to be completed on the 26th of January, 1892. The contract was signed by each of the parties. Three days after the date of this agreement Mrs. -Coles died testate of a will, by the first item of which she devised “so much of my real estate situate…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
I do not think the rights of the parties turn upon the question, so much discussed in the briefs-, whether or not the land in question “remained unsold" at the decease of the testatrix, and because sold was not devised by her under the first item of her will, or whether she “died seized" of it in such sense as to bring it within the scope of the power of sale contained in the thirteenth item.
If this contract of sale was a valid contract, its effect was to work a conversion of the land from real to personal property 1 This it was in the power of the testatrix to do,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Butterer v. SantoroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
- Commercial Trust Co. of N.J. v. ZunniNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- Righter v. First Reformed Church of BoontonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Stockfleth v. BrittenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929