Hartman v. Powell
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Ou bill, answer and proofs. The complainant is the owner of a house and lot on the north side of Stevens street, known as No. 579 Stevens street, in the city of Camden. The defendant is the owner of the adjoining house, on the same street, known as No. 577 Stevens street.
Read the full summary
Ou bill, answer and proofs. The complainant is the owner of a house and lot on the north side of Stevens street, known as No. 579 Stevens street, in the city of Camden. The defendant is the owner of the adjoining house, on the same street, known as No. 577 Stevens street. The complainant alleges that, desiring to construct a new porch in front of her' dwelling, she had a conference with the defendant, who, she learned, also intended to make alterations to his porch; that the defendant gave her permission to- construct a foundation for a porch column for the space of six and one-half inches on…
1Opinion of the Court
Grey, V. C.
There can be no question, I think, that the right to erect and maintain a pier and column for her own benefit upon the property of the defendant, which the complainant asserts in this suit, is such an interest in lands as the statute of fraiids re*296quires to be in writing. Slie claims a riglit permanently to occupy and use the defendant’s lands and to exclude him from any enjoyment or use of the same. The terms of that statute declare that the force and effect of a parol agreement, creating an interest in lands, shall be to pass an estate at will only, whether it be asserted in law…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Forbes v. ForbesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
- Capone v. RanzulliNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Jos. S. Naame Co. v. Louis Satanov, C., Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928