Legal Opinion

Burr v. Nivison

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 1, 1909PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Howell, whose opinion is reported in '7f N. J. Fq. (J¡. Buck.) SW.

1Opinion of the Court

*242The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

The bill seeks to set aside and cancel of record an agreement for the sale of land by complainant to the defendant Rosenstein, because it was secured by fraud and because it is invalid by reason of the fact that it was made on Sunday. We agree with-the vice-chancellor that the complainant failed to establish fraud. As tc- the other ground of invalidity we reach the same result, but by a somewhat different process. Our view renders it unnecessary to pass upon the legal question whether the court will intervene at the instance of one of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gibbs & Sterrett Manufacturing Co. v. BruckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Dickinson v. RichmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Naylor v. ConroyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  2. Tiffany v. MooneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  3. Johnson v. Grand Lodge of the Ancient Order of United WorkmenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1911
  4. Hamilton v. Standard Metal Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API