Legal Opinion
Ewert v. Lichtman
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided November 13, 1947No. Docket 147/636PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The consideration of this cause may well be undertaken with a comprehension of that degree of duress which in equity will permit a party to a tripartite transaction to recant, retrace his steps, and affirmatively to rescind his own course of action without which the entire bargain would not have been consummated.
A variety of definitions of duress, similar in essence, may be found in the opinion composed by Mr. Justice Perskie for the Court of Errors and Appeals in Miller v. Eisele,111 N.J. Law 268, 275; 168 Atl. Rep. 426.
Other informative decisions of recent date relative to the subject are:…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miller v. EiseleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Koewing v. Town of West OrangeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1916
- McCrory Stores Corp. v. S. M. Braunstein, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1923
- Hochman v. Zigler's, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1946
- Magna Mfg. v. Aetna Cas.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shalit v. Investors Savings & Loan Ass'nNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
- Wolf v. Marlton Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
- Futurity Realty Corp. v. Passaic Nat. B. T. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
- Rubenstein v. RubensteinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956