Legal Opinion
Moore v. Durnam
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided February 18, 1902PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, Y. C.
This suit is brought to collect a lost check. The facts proved are these: Moore, owned a farm, upon which was a mortgage; he agreed to sell part of this farm to Durnam. Durnam was to pay the mortgage on the entire farm and all costs which had accrued upon a suit brought to foreclose the said mortgage, and all taxes upon the farm, such payments not to exceed in the aggregate $5,000. This payment was to be made on the 8th day of October, 1900. In the written agreement embodying these terms is the following clause:
“The party of the second part [Durnam] agrees to pay, on the signing of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hansbrough v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Monmouth Park Ass'n v. Wallis Iron WorksSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
- Green v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Haynes v. HartNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Donahue v. ParkmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hull v. AngusOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Karafa v. NJ State Lottery Comm.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Oliver v. LawsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966
- Bernstein v. RosenzweigNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
- Messinger v. LeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.