Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 N.J. Misc. 1045

Rose v. Buckley

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided October 30, 1924

New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1924-10-30

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1952

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-10-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ingersoll, V. C.

¶1I recently filed a memorandum as follows:

“At the time of the hearing there was pending in the Atlantic county circuit court proceedings in attachment *1046brought by Eose against the defendant Buckley and others, for the return of the money paid by him' on account of the purchase of the property described in his'bill of complaint.”

¶2I am now informed that this writ of attachment was dismissed on March 14th, 1924.

¶3I desire to hear counsel’s views upon the question, “Was the issuance of this writ an election by complainant [plaintiff] and is it now binding upon him ?”

¶4The court of errors and appeals in an opinion in Claron v. Thommessen, filed very recently, and not yet reported, states fhe rule to be:

“When he [the purchaser] instituted suit ágainst Ciaron [the seller] to recover the deposit money, he irrevocably committed himself in solemn form to a repudiation of all obligation under the agreement. Having taken this step in rescission of the contract, he will not now be permitted to seek its enforcement in a court of’conscience,”

¶5This court is bound by this statement óf the law as expressed by the court of errors and appeals, and the bill must therefore be dismissed.

/2/njmisc/1045 · .json · Public domain