Perkins v. Robertson

92 N.J. Eq. 692
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 15, 1921·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Griffin, by an opinion filed in the court of chancery, rendered a decision of the principal contention in this case in favor of the respondents upon three grounds, viz.-—• first, that the contract alleged by the defendants was not proved, [693]*693and second, if proved it was without consideration, and third, if proved performance was prevented by the subsequent acts of the defendants themselves. We agree that the decree should be affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned vice-chancellor under tire first and third grounds above enumerated. Upon the question whether if a contract had been proved it would have been supported by a valid consideration we expiress no opinion. The decree is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chibe-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, I-Ieprenheimer, Williams, Gardner—12. For reversal—None.

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

Perkins v. Robertson, 92 N.J. Eq. 692 (N.J. 1921).

92 N.J. Eq. 692 (Perkins v. Robertson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shoup v. Dowsey
36 A.2d 66 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1944)