Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley
This text of 148 A. 916 (Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The vice-chancellor found that the false representations alleged to have been made as an inducement to the making of the contract in this case were not proved. 105 N. J. Eq. 586. In this we concur. This being true, it is unnecessar3r to pass upon his further conclusion of law that even if proved such representations would not constitute a defense to the bill for specific performance.
The decree is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchabd, Pakkee, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Yan Buskibk, McG-lennon, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
148 A. 916, 105 N.J. Eq. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-j-waldron-inc-v-cutley-nj-1930.