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

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 19, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

127 A. 924 (Coltinuk v. Hockstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related