Durant v. Bacot
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This case came up on appeal from the decision of the Chancellor dismissing the complainant’s bill. The opinion of the Chancellor will be found in 2 Beasley, p. 201. It was argued in the Court of Appeals by
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Van Dyke, J.
The object of the bill in this case is to reform and correct an alleged mistake in the description of a lot of land, situate in Jersey City, on the north side of New'afk avenue, and on the west side of Warren street, at or near the intersection of the two streets. The description is contained in a deed from John Van Vorst to William Duraht, dhted the twelfth day of October, 1830, which lot of land is now owned by the complainant.
The complainant alleges, in his bill, that, in the year 182V, the said John Van Vorst, for the consideration of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rauh v. BickNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931