Legal Opinion

Joachim v. Belfus

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 18, 1930PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

At the conclusion of the hearing the defendant was directed to specifically perform his contract to purchase the complainants' property. The contract fixed September 1st, 1929, as the date of closing. The defendant defaulted. The complainant then by letter set September 14th and declared time of the essence of the contract. The parties met and for the first time the defendant made known that the premises were subject to an easement and that eaves of the garage on the rear of the property overhung adjoining land four inches, which violated one of the covenants of the contract. For these…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Van Riper v. WickershamSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1910
  2. Dill v. Board of EducationNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1890
  3. Gerba v. MitruskeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  4. Knopf v. Alma Park, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  5. Arlington Realty Co. v. KellerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1929

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Messer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
  2. Ballantyne House Associates v. City of NewarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
  3. Freedman v. LiebermanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  4. Baird v. Board, C., South OrangeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  5. Krafte v. BelfusNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933

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

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

Powered by the Exa API