Rauh v. Bick
New Jersey Court of Chancery
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
- Mullen v. CronanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1919
- Graham v. BerrymanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1868
- Seitz Brewing Co. v. AyresNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1900
- Durant v. BacotNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1860
- Durant v. BacotSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- Riggle v. SkillNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Millhurst Milling & Drying Co. v. Automobile Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954