Legal Opinion

Burke v. Dorfan

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided June 21, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Specific performance to compel a vendee to perform his contract to purchase. The vendee answers that the title is encumbered and therefore not marketable and counter-claims for his down money. He purchased the property to be used for dyeing and dressing furs, and the vendor knew it. The title is subject to a restriction that the owner will not erect upon any part of the premises, inter alia, any manufactory for the tanning, dressing or preparing of skins, hides or leather. The property formerly was part of the Rutherford Park Association plot, mapped out into streets and lots, and the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Scull v. EilenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1923
  2. Brigham v. H. G. Mulock Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
  3. Smith v. ReidyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921
  4. Hemsley v. Marlborough House Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1905
  5. Barton v. SliferNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1907

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Javna v. DJ Fredricks, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  2. Casriel v. KingNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
  3. Bank of Montclair v. MallasNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
  4. Gaub v. Nassau Homes, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  5. Caparell v. GoodbodyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API