Legal Opinion

Kietrys v. Cregar

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided August 30, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Leyden, ¡3. C. G.

The motion is to strike the answer, separate defenses and counter-claim as sham and insufficient in law.

Cregar, the defendant, sold his house and lot to Kietrys, pursuant to the covenants and agreements contained in a contract of sale made the 25th day of September, 1944. The contract provided that the defendant, in consideration of $8,500, would convey the premises to the plaintiff by deed of warranty, free of all encumbrances, on or before the 1st day of November, 1944, and further that Kietrys “may enter into and upon the said land and premises on the 1st day of November,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ash v. CohnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
  2. Ward v. HuffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
  3. State v. SmithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
  4. Taylor v. BrewerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
  5. Wm. H. Jamouneau Co. v. WetherillSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  2. Copeland v. AndersonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1985
  3. Melcer v. ZUCKNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967

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

Powered by the Exa API