Legal Opinion

Binns v. Smith

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 29, 1921PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On final hearing on bill for specific performance.

1Opinion of the Court

Leaking, V. C.

1. It is clear that the understanding of the parties as to when the purchase-money mortgage referred to in' the contract should be made payable cannot be established by parol proofs. Schwartzman v. Creveling, 85 N. J. Eq. 402.

2. I am convinced that the evidence does not justify an affirmative finding that the contract was acknowledged by Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith, probably, understood the transaction fully at the time she signed the agreement and the notary public was no doubt fully satisfied that she understood it. But there is no evidence either by a certificate of acknowledgment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Milmoe v. MurphySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
  2. Mahaney v. MahaneyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Schneidau v. ManleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  2. Matlack v. ArendNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  3. Kutschinski v. ThompsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  4. Fisher v. MillerSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
  5. Levine v. Lafayette Building Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928

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

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

Powered by the Exa API