King v. Ruckman
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Two distinct suits were brought in tlie Court of Chancery, one by King for the specific performance of a contract by Buckman, for the conveyance of lands; the other by Buck-man to have that contract declared void, and given up to be cancelled. The decrees below dismissed King’s bill, and declared the contract void. From both decrees King appealed. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Chancellor, reported in 5 C. E. Green 346.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Dalrimple, J.
This cause was argued at so late a day in the term as to make it impracticable now to enter into any discussion of the questions of law or facts involved.
The court, after careful consideration of the case, has directed me to state the conclusions at which it has arrived, as follows:
First. Time is not of the essence of the contract on which the complainant’s bill is founded.
Second. It is a general rule that in equity time is not deemed to be of the essence of the contract, unless the parties have expressly so stipulated, or it necessarily…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Miller v. HeadleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
- Gallicchio v. JarzlaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- Gottlaub v. CohenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
- Hoffman v. PerkinsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Horton v. HortonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.