Legal Opinion

Bianchi v. Herman

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 8, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The suit by the Hermans is to specifically enforce a contract for the sale of land; that by Bianchi is to set aside the contract and to remove the cloud from the record. The suits have been consolidated.

Mrs. Herman and Bianchi, by contract in writing, October 13th, 1927, agreed upon an exchange of properties to be consummated January 2d 1929. The title to the Herman property stood in the name of Mrs. Herman's husband. He, a lawyer, made the deal with Bianchi, also a lawyer. The contract was not acknowledged by Mrs. Herman, nor did her husband join in it. The Hermans were under the impression…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rittenhouse v. SwiecickiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
  2. Gerba v. MitruskeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  3. Ten Eyck v. ManningNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1893
  4. Cavanna v. BrooksSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
  5. Freeman v. AndersNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gottlaub v. CohenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  2. Harrington Co. v. KadreyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  3. Navilio v. SicaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API