Klie v. Von Broock
New Jersey Court of Chancery
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
- Agate v. . LowenbeinNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Winship v. PittsNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Jackson ex dem. Thomas v. TibbitsNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by8 opinions
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Northern Trust Co. v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
- S.P. Dunham Co. v. 26 E. State St. Realty Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- Union Trust Co. v. Goerke Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
- Hamburger Dreyling v. SettegastCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.