Legal Opinion

Coltinuk v. Hockstein

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 28, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Church, Y. C.

This is a case for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. This contract was dated May 21st, 1918. On *514that clay the title did not pass because there were certain encumbrances on the property which aggregated more than the price to be paid. Therefore, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement which reads as follows:

“That the said Hoekstein [the defendant] shall have an additional year in which to perfect his title, and should the said Hock-stein at any time within a year from the 1st day of August, 1918, discharge the various encumbrances existing- against…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re TatnallNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
  2. Johnson v. BatesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
  3. Nolan v. KirchnerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  4. Koperski v. WiraNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
  5. Cohen v. MillerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API