Zelley v. Shisler

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Zelley v. Shisler

128 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 1, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 29

DecidedDecember 3, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A. 926 (Zelley v. Shisler) 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

Zelley v. Shisler, 128 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 1, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 29 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

-BrCHAYAY, V. C.

Complainant’s bill is for a decree for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been made by both defendants with complainant. The proofs at the hearing entitle complainant to decree against the defendant Mae Shisler, but [2]*2are, in my opinion, insufficient to establish either that the defendant Clifford Shisler was an actual party to the contract, or that he has estopped himself from denying that he was a party to the contract. As to him, complainant is' not entitled to1 relief.

Under the circumstances of the case no costs will- be allowed to either party.

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

-BrCHAYAY, V. C.

Complainant’s bill is for a decree for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been made by both defendants with complainant. The proofs at the hearing entitle complainant to decree against the defendant Mae Shisler, but [2]*2are, in my opinion, insufficient to establish either that the defendant Clifford Shisler was an actual party to the contract, or that he has estopped himself from denying that he was a party to the contract. As to him, complainant is' not entitled to1 relief.

Under the circumstances of the case no costs will- be allowed to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 1, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelley-v-shisler-njch-1924.