Koperski v. Wira

After this cause was decided counsel for the complainants suggested that the question of specific performance, with an abatement of the purchase price, had not been sufficiently argued. Leave to reargue this point was given.

The complainants cite Luczak v. Mariove, 92 N.J. Eq. 377;affirmed, 93 N.J. Eq. 501. This case does not support the complainant's theory. There, while the contract was not acknowledged by the wife prior to the date fixed for passing the title, she did execute and acknowledge, with her husband, a deed to the complainant, which the husband afterwards destroyed, which…