Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley

148 A. 916, 105 N.J. Eq. 736

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 5, 1930·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

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

Pee Curiam.

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.

Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley, 148 A. 916, 105 N.J. Eq. 736 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

148 A. 916 (Austin J. Waldron, Inc. v. Cutley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.