Legal Opinion

Rauh v. Bick

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 9, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is a bill to reform a contract entered into between the parties, whereby complainant was allowed ten feet along the southerly side of defendant's property for the construction of a siding. Complainant contends that his object in purchasing the premises for a large sum of money was to get larger quarters and where he could secure a proper siding. He moved in in 1925, and made no application for the siding until 1927, stating then his reason to be: "We do not wish to lose our rights to this agreement and we therefore ask you to submit to us plans for approval." The siding itself,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mullen v. CronanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1919
  2. Graham v. BerrymanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1868
  3. Seitz Brewing Co. v. AyresNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900
  4. Durant v. BacotNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1860
  5. Durant v. BacotSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1861

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Riggle v. SkillNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  2. Millhurst Milling & Drying Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API