Maturi v. Fay
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, upon rehearing, who filed the following opinion: “It appears, from the agreed stipulation of facts submitted and the record in Maturi v. Fay, that the complainants first instituted a suit in the Hudson county circuit court for the. return of the deposit money paid on account of the contract, together with fees for searches and disbursements under the statute.
Read the full summary
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, upon rehearing, who filed the following opinion: “It appears, from the agreed stipulation of facts submitted and the record in Maturi v. Fay, that the complainants first instituted a suit in the Hudson county circuit court for the. return of the deposit money paid on account of the contract, together with fees for searches and disbursements under the statute. Later, this suit was discontinued, and the present bill for specific performance was filed. “If this is a correct assumption of the facts, it is clear…
1Per curiam
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Lewis in the court of chancery.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Black, Katzbnbaoh, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Clark, McGlennon, Kays, JJ. 13.
For reversal — -None.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Levy v. Massachusetts Accident Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1938
- DIAL PRESS, INC. v. PhillipsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Lizak v. RottenbucherNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
- Van Buren v. FineNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
- Robinson-Shore Development Co. v. GallagherNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.