Hall v. Bray

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hall v. Bray

1 N.J.L. 245

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 15, 1794·Published

Opinion

Per Cur.

Such an agreement is no revocation at law. An intention to sell does hot revoke a will by which the property is devised. In equity, perhaps, it may be considered as an absolute disposition. Powell on Dev. 565, 593 — 4; Abney v. [213] Miller, 2 Atk. 593; Rider v. Wager, 2 P. Wms. 328; Cotter v. Layer, Ibid. 623; Willet v. Sandford, 1 Vesey 177; Vernon v. Jones, 2 Vern. 241 ; Prec, in Chey.32; Archer v. Bokenham, 11 Mod. 148. See 1 Bl. Rep. 349.

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

Per Cur.

Such an agreement is no revocation at law. An intention to sell does hot revoke a will by which the property is devised. In equity, perhaps, it may be considered as an absolute disposition. Powell on Dev. 565, 593 — 4; Abney v. [213] Miller, 2 Atk. 593; Rider v. Wager, 2 P. Wms. 328; Cotter v. Layer, Ibid. 623; Willet v. Sandford, 1 Vesey 177; Vernon v. Jones, 2 Vern. 241 ; Prec, in Chey.32; Archer v. Bokenham, 11 Mod. 148. See 1 Bl. Rep. 349.

Hall v. Bray, 1 N.J.L. 245 (N.J. 1794).

Pincite

1 N.J.L. 245 (Hall v. Bray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.