Katz v. Katz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Katz v. Katz

47 A.2d 423, 134 N.J.L. 303, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 3, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 A.2d 423 (Katz v. Katz) 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

Katz v. Katz, 47 A.2d 423, 134 N.J.L. 303, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Oliphant, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the balance of a sum paid by him as a deposit on a contract to purchase a business made between him and Meyer Katz, deceased. A total sum of $5,500 had been paid in part payment. Plaintiff refused to complete performance and after such refusal, Meyer Katz, deceased, returned to him the sum of $5,000 retaining $500. Plaintiff also paid $50 to the attorney of Katz in payment of his services. The contract is silent as to damages for its breach. This was the state of the proof at the close of plaintiff’s case. The attorney for the defendant moved for a judgment of nonsuit which was granted. We find no error in this action.

Where a contract contains no stipulation as to damages for its breach a purchaser who alone repudiates the contract without justifiable cause, as in the case sub judice, cannot recover what he has paid under it. Steinbach v. Pettingill, 67 N. J. L. 36; Thompson v. Killhefer, 98 Id. 359; reversed on other grounds in 99 Id. 439; Blank v. Berger, 104 Id. 569; Moore v. Durnam, 63 N. J. Eq. 96; affirmed, 69 Id. 828.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Oliphant, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the balance of a sum paid by him as a deposit on a contract to purchase a business made between him and Meyer Katz, deceased. A total sum of $5,500 had been paid in part payment. Plaintiff refused to complete performance and after such refusal, Meyer Katz, deceased, returned to him the sum of $5,000 retaining $500. Plaintiff also paid $50 to the attorney of Katz in payment of his services. The contract is silent as to damages for its breach. This was the state of the proof at the close of plaintiff’s case. The attorney for the defendant moved for a judgment of nonsuit which was granted. We find no error in this action.

Where a contract contains no stipulation as to damages for its breach a purchaser who alone repudiates the contract without justifiable cause, as in the case sub judice, cannot recover what he has paid under it. Steinbach v. Pettingill, 67 N. J. L. 36; Thompson v. Killhefer, 98 Id. 359; reversed on other grounds in 99 Id. 439; Blank v. Berger, 104 Id. 569; Moore v. Durnam, 63 N. J. Eq. 96; affirmed, 69 Id. 828.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.2d 423, 134 N.J.L. 303, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-katz-nj-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack