Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Pollock

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided January 17, 1928PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is a suit for specific performance and a counter-claim for the return of the deposit with reasonable allowances.

The contract provides:

"It is expressly understood and agreed that the buildings upon the said premises are all within the boundary lines of the property as described in the deed therefor, and that there are no encroachments thereon."

The contract was to have been closed May 1st, 1926. It was agreed by counsel at the hearing that the original contract did not make time of the essence of the contract; that the premises of the complainants encroached upon the street line some…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Orange Society of New Jerusalem v. KonskiNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1923
  2. Gerba v. MitruskeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  3. Wyatt v. BergenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
  4. Nass v. MunzingNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. PerkinsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
  2. Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. BelkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  3. Jersey Estates Corp. v. WeintraubNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  4. Dixon v. OberNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1948
  5. Schultz v. PollockSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API