Legal Opinion

Kramer v. Yocum

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 28, 1928PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

I have examined and considered the petition, affidavits, supporting affidavits and answering affidavits and have also read and considered the briefs submitted by the solicitors of the complainant and of the defendant Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company. The facts necessary for my consideration of this matter are not in substantial dispute. These facts are that the complainant sold and conveyed to one Gibson certain lands and the building thereon erected, the purchaser giving to the complainant and another a mortgage of $4,000 in part payment of the purchase price of the premises. Subsequently…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bollschweiler v. Packer House Hotel Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1914
  2. Stanber v. Sims Magneto Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  3. Pincus v. U.S. Dyeing and Cleaning WorksNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
  4. Campbell v. RoddySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1888

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mfrs. Bldg. v. Pub. Serv.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API