Legal Opinion

Freedman v. Sandknop

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 15, 1895Published

On motion to dissolve injunction. Heard on bill, answers and copy of contract, used at the argument by consent of counsel.,

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

It appears, by the bill, that the complainant entered into a contract in writing with the defendant Sandknop, in April,. 1894, by which the latter became bound to “ well and sufficiently erect and finish the new building to be erected ” on Dayton avenue, in the city of Passaic, “ agreeably to the drawings and specifications made by C; ICevitt,” and to “ find and provide such good,.proper and sufficient materials of all kinds whatsoever as ” should “ be proper and sufficient for the completing and finishing all the plumbing, carpentering, mason, painting, tinning and other…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pimlott v. HallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API