Burns v. Thomas
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Garrison. 'The defendant agreed in writing to convey to complainant a lot in Jersey City, particularly described as “being part of Plot 19 B in Block '1827, situated on the northerly side of Duncan avenue easterly from West Side avenue, being twenty-five feet in width in front and rear and one hundred and twenty-five feet in depth on both sides, together with the four-story brick apartment dwelling…
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Garrison. 'The defendant agreed in writing to convey to complainant a lot in Jersey City, particularly described as “being part of Plot 19 B in Block '1827, situated on the northerly side of Duncan avenue easterly from West Side avenue, being twenty-five feet in width in front and rear and one hundred and twenty-five feet in depth on both sides, together with the four-story brick apartment dwelling situated thereon.” The building was then in course of construction and nearly completed. At the request of Lippman, who…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swatze, J.
The complainant does not seek rescission but relies upon the contention that the deed is not in accordance with the written agreement. The elaborate description in the decree is itself unlike anything in the agreement, and the decree can only be sustained upon the theory that the agreement was, if properly construed, to convey a building with the exterior lines set forth in the decree, and not merely to convey a lot particularly described with the dwelling thereon. If the complainant’s contention is correct, there is a latent ambiguity in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. . SinsheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- Freedman v. Kensico Realty Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Feder v. SolomonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925