Antonsanti v. Van Brunt

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Antonsanti v. Van Brunt

140 A. 276, 6 N.J. Misc. 83, 1928 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 156

DecidedFebruary 6, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A. 276 (Antonsanti v. Van Brunt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antonsanti v. Van Brunt, 140 A. 276, 6 N.J. Misc. 83, 1928 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 156 (N.J. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Backes, V. C.

The complainant bought and paid for two properties in Jersey City and took title in his wife’s name, at her request, and on her promise that she would make a will devising them to him for life remainder to his children by a former marriage. The wife died without making a will and the husband’s bill is against her parents, who succeeded, to the estate, to enforce the promise. The facts are satisfactorily established.

Aside from contending that the proofs do not support this finding, the defendants contend that the oral promise of the wife was unenforcible because of the statute of frauds. The promise was upon a valuable consideration paid by the husband ; he has performed his part of the bargain, and the statute is not available to bar relief. Johnson v. Hubbel, 10 N. J. Eq. 332; Duvale v. Duvale, 54 N. J. Eq. 581; affirmed, 56 N. J. Eq. 375.

There will be a decree.

The children are not parties to the suit. They will have to be brought in.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Backes, V. C.

The complainant bought and paid for two properties in Jersey City and took title in his wife’s name, at her request, and on her promise that she would make a will devising them to him for life remainder to his children by a former marriage. The wife died without making a will and the husband’s bill is against her parents, who succeeded, to the estate, to enforce the promise. The facts are satisfactorily established.

Aside from contending that the proofs do not support this finding, the defendants contend that the oral promise of the wife was unenforcible because of the statute of frauds. The promise was upon a valuable consideration paid by the husband ; he has performed his part of the bargain, and the statute is not available to bar relief. Johnson v. Hubbel, 10 N. J. Eq. 332; Duvale v. Duvale, 54 N. J. Eq. 581; affirmed, 56 N. J. Eq. 375.

There will be a decree.

The children are not parties to the suit. They will have to be brought in.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A. 276, 6 N.J. Misc. 83, 1928 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonsanti-v-van-brunt-njch-1928.