Ocean City Land Co. v. Weber
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On final hearing on bill to enjoin violation of restrictive building covenant.
1Opinion of the Court
Leaming, Y. C.
I am convinced that complainant’s right to the form of relief here sought cannot be said to be established with that degree of certainty which is necessary in cases of this class. Fortesque v. Carroll, 76 N. J. Eq. 583; Meaney v. Stork, 80 N. J. Eq. 60; Goater v. Ely, 80 N. J. Eq. 40.
1. The language of the restrictive building covenant which complainant seeks to enforce if not of doubtful meaning is at least calculated to mislead. The reference in the covenant to “said avenue,” following a description of lots at the corner of a block which specifically refers to “Corinthian…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ogontz Land & Improvement Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Bagnall v. DaviesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
3Cited by9 opinions
- Edwards v. WisemanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1941
- Guyton v. YanceySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1960
- Hill v. Wm. P. Ross, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Hendlin v. Fairmount Construction Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Casriel v. KingNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.