Legal Opinion

Richman v. Richman

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 20, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Complainant seeks a decree for specific performance of a verbal contract for the sale of lands in Salem county. Defendant pleads,inter alia, the statute of frauds.

Relief must be denied for the following reasons:

1. The terms of the contract, as alleged by complainant, are not clearly proved to the satisfaction of the court.

2. The alleged acts of part performance on the part of the complainant, in so far as there is proof of any part performance, are not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds.

The contract, as alleged by the complainant in his complaint, is that on or about…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cooper v. ColsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1904
  2. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1881
  3. Nibert v. BaghurstNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1890
  4. Shipman v. ShipmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
  5. Cooper v. CarlisleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1866

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Presten v. SailerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
  2. Kufta v. HughsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  3. DeMarco v. EstlowNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  4. Hardy v. HangenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API