Blaisdell v. Derees
Supreme Court of New Jersey
“Blaisdell and Derees were strangers. On April 13th, 1926, Derees called on Blaisdell and induced the latter to execute the bargain and sale deed to Mrs. Derees for the consideration of $200. The fraud of which the complainants complain is that in the negotiations that day, Derees told them that he was employed by a corporation in clearing up tax titles and received $10 for each deed obtained as compensation for his services; that he had no personal interest in the…
Read the full summary
“Blaisdell and Derees were strangers. On April 13th, 1926, Derees called on Blaisdell and induced the latter to execute the bargain and sale deed to Mrs. Derees for the consideration of $200. The fraud of which the complainants complain is that in the negotiations that day, Derees told them that he was employed by a corporation in clearing up tax titles and received $10 for each deed obtained as compensation for his services; that he had no personal interest in the transaction and had come to offer the complainants $200 for their interest in the property in question; that when complainants…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cukiam.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Rielder.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchard, Parker, Mintubn, Kalisci-i, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 15.
For reversal — Kone.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Schwartz v. GrunwaldNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
- South Carolina National Bank v. CookSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987