Coltinuk v. Hockstein

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Coltinuk v. Hockstein

127 A. 924, 97 N.J. Eq. 371, 12 Stock. 371, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 538

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 19, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A. 924 (Coltinuk v. Hockstein) 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.

Bluebook

Coltinuk v. Hockstein, 127 A. 924, 97 N.J. Eq. 371, 12 Stock. 371, 1925 N.J. LEXIS 538 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed to compel specific performance of a contract to convey real estate, located in the city of Bayonne.

Our reading of the record and a consideration of the briefs lead us to the same conclusion as that of the vice-chancellor, viz., a decree for specific performance should be ordered.

The decree of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Min-turn, Black, Katzenbach, Lloyd, Clark, McGlennon, JJ. 8. For reversal—Parker, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, Kays, JJ. 6.

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