Legal Opinion

Zuckermandel v. Zuckermandel

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 8, 1944No. Docket 142/613PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In Taylor v. Riggs, 1 Pet. 591; 7 L.Ed. 275, Chief-Justice Marshall stated: "When a written contract is to be proved, not by itself but by parol testimony, no vague, uncertain recollection concerning its stipulations ought to supply the place of the written instrument itself. The substance of the agreement ought to be proven satisfactorily, and if that cannot be done, the party is in the condition of every other suitor in court who makes a claim that he cannot support. When parties reduce their contract to writing the obligations and rights of which are described and limited by the instrument…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tayloe v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Maddock v. ConnollySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  3. Van Horn v. DemarestNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1909
  4. Maddock v. ConnollyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1913
  5. Borstelman v. BrohanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1913

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Borough of Sayreville v. Bellefonte Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998
  2. Dart Industries v. Commercial Union Ins.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. STATE BY PARSONS v. Otis Elevator Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API