Partridge v. Cummings
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
Complainant urges that his parol contract of joint adventure with Cummings Brothers was not a contract for an interest in real estate, but was merely a contract for an interest in the profits to be derived from the purchase and sale of the real estate, and, hence, does not fall within the provisions of our statute of frauds.
The authorities in this country are in conflict as to whether a parol agreement of joint adventure in the nature of a partnership to speculate in real estate falls within the provisions of a statute of frauds similar to the statute of frauds of this state. Some of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. BurnhamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1838
- Schultz v. WaldonsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1901
3Cited by6 opinions
- Presten v. SailerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
- DeMarco v. EstlowNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Mianulli v. GunaganNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- Silberman v. AngertNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
- Grant v. Steenland Construction Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.