Myers v. Vogt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Myers v. Vogt

138 A. 922, 101 N.J. Eq. 797, 16 Stock. 797, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 616

DecidedOctober 17, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 922 (Myers v. Vogt) 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

Myers v. Vogt, 138 A. 922, 101 N.J. Eq. 797, 16 Stock. 797, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 616 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill filed in this case, prayed for the reformation of a deed of real estate dated July 14th, 1921. The case was heard by Vice-Chancellor Eielder; he advised a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill. One of the reasons stated by the learned vice-chancellor for such judicial action was: What the complainant really seeks is the performance of his wife’s promise to convey. The complainant employed the scrivener to whom he and his wife stated their instructions, and, if the scriver misunderstood or failed to carry out their wishes, the conveyance was merely an abortive attempt to make complainant a promised gift.

With this reason given by the vice-chancellor for the conclusion we agree.

The decree of the court of chancery dismissing the complainant’s bill of complaint is, therefore, affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Tbehchard, Parker, Mihturn, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Vaw Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill filed in this case, prayed for the reformation of a deed of real estate dated July 14th, 1921. The case was heard by Vice-Chancellor Eielder; he advised a decree dismissing the complainant’s bill. One of the reasons stated by the learned vice-chancellor for such judicial action was: What the complainant really seeks is the performance of his wife’s promise to convey. The complainant employed the scrivener to whom he and his wife stated their instructions, and, if the scriver misunderstood or failed to carry out their wishes, the conveyance was merely an abortive attempt to make complainant a promised gift.

With this reason given by the vice-chancellor for the conclusion we agree.

The decree of the court of chancery dismissing the complainant’s bill of complaint is, therefore, affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Tbehchard, Parker, Mihturn, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Vaw Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 922, 101 N.J. Eq. 797, 16 Stock. 797, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-vogt-nj-1927.