Legal Opinion

Klie v. Von Broock

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 30, 1897PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On bill, combined answer and cross-bill and replication.

1Opinion of the Court

Pitney, V. C.

The undisputed facts in the cause are as follows:

The complainants, prior to March, 1895, were the owners of a corner lot covered by a building, in the city of Hoboken, bounded on the north by Newark street, and on the east by River street. The building was four stories high, about thirty-six feet front on Newark street, seventy feet on River street, and had a width in the rear of forty-two and a half feet from River street. The increased width in the rear is due to an offset of six and a half feet in the west side line at a distance of thirty-three feet from Newark street; the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Agate v. . LowenbeinNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  2. Winship v. PittsNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
  3. Jackson ex dem. Thomas v. TibbitsNew York Supreme Court · 1829

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
  2. Northern Trust Co. v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
  3. S.P. Dunham Co. v. 26 E. State St. Realty Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
  4. Union Trust Co. v. Goerke Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
  5. Hamburger Dreyling v. SettegastCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910

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

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

Powered by the Exa API