Legal Opinion

Mechanick v. Duschaneck

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 16, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant Duschaneck, by contract in writing, agreed to sell and convey his land to one Abruzzo. Abruzzo assigned the contract to O'Donnell Arotsky. O'Donnell Arotsky agreed in writing to convey the land to the complainant, subject to acquiring title. The bill is to enforce the original contract and compel Duschaneck to convey to the complainant. The complainant cannot recover directly on the original contract. He is neither party nor privy to it; he is not an assignee. McVoy v.Baumann, 93 N.J. Eq. 360. To a common bill for the specific performance of a contract of sale the parties to the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McVoy v. BaumannNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
  2. Bacot v. WetmoreNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1865

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Maloyfsky v. SchiraldiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
  2. B. B. Investment Co. v. KaufmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API