Home/New Jersey Court of Chancery/Moore v. Baker

Moore v. Baker

49 A. 836, 62 N.J. Eq. 208, 17 Dickinson 208, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 66
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedJuly 16, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A. 836 (Moore v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. Baker, 49 A. 836, 62 N.J. Eq. 208, 17 Dickinson 208, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 66 (N.J. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

Stevens, Y. C.

The only question raised by the demurrer is whether a vendor may bring a suit for specific performance against vendee to recover purchase-money. This question was answered in the affirmative by Chancellor Green, in Hopper v. Hopper, 1 C. E. Gr. 147. The decision in Miller v. Cameron, 18 Stew. Eq. 96, is to the same effect, and the rule seems thoroughly settled. Brown v. Hoff, 5 Paige 240; Sugd. Vend. & P. *244 ch. 5 § 4; Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1402, 1405, 1407; Story Eq. Jur. §§ 723, 790, 796. In Fry Spec. Perf. *10 § 23, the grounds upon which the court proceeds are fully stated.

I think the demurrer should be overruled.-

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

Related

Centex Homes Corp. v. Boag
320 A.2d 194 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1974)
Mutual Life Ins. v. Chamberlin
52 F. Supp. 334 (D. New Jersey, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A. 836, 62 N.J. Eq. 208, 17 Dickinson 208, 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-baker-njch-1901.