Feigenspan v. Nizolek
New Jersey Court of Chancery
answer and proofs. Tlie object of the bill is to enforce a written contract by enjoining the breach of a negative covenant therein.
Read the full summary
answer and proofs. Tlie object of the bill is to enforce a written contract by enjoining the breach of a negative covenant therein. The contract is as follows: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Joseph Nizolek, of the city of Elizabeth, county of Union and State of New Jersey, in consideration of the sum of one dollar and other valuable considerations, do hereby agree to purchase from Christian Feigenspan, a corporation, all ales, lager beer and porter as sold in my saloon at number seventy-three Florida •St., in the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey, for the period of five years. “And I…
1Opinion of the Court
Pitney, V. C.
I The only questions of fact and of law raised by the pleadings are—first, whether the agreement set out in the bill was entered into by the defendant intelligently, and second, whether, if it were so entered into, in view of the fact that the defendant, or some one in his behalf, has discharged the pecuniary obligations to the complainant incurred at the same time the contract was entered into, it is still binding on the defendant.
*386The question of the jurisdiction of this court to enforce by injunction the negative covenant contained in the agreement was not raised either by the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- United Board & Carton Corp. v. BrittingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
- Reeves v. ReevesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- N.J. National Bank, C., Co. v. WolfNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- Atlantic Refining Co. v. KellySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
- Mantell v. International Plastic Harmonica Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.