Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. O'Neil

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided May 15, 1875PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On final hearing, on pleadings and proofs';

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

This is a suit for specific performance, to compel the defendant to convey to the complainant a lot in Jersey City, which the latter purchased of John M. Gibson, as agent of the former. The authority of Gibson to sell the property is denied by the defendant, and it is also insisted, on his behalf, that conceding that Gibson had authority to sell, the contract entered into by him, with the complainant, is' not such a one as this court will compel the defendant to perform. The objections made to it are that it lacks both mutuality and certainty. The contract in question was in…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Miller v. HeadleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
  2. Monahan v. McElligottNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
  3. General American Life Ins. v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1947
  4. Feldman v. WarshawskyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API