Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 N.J. Eq. 208

Moore v. Baker

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided July 16, 1901

New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1901-07-16

<p>A vendor may bring a suit for specific performance against the vendee to recover purchase-money.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1974

1 district · 1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-07-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stevens, Y. C.

¶1The 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.

¶2I think the demurrer should be overruled.-

/62/njeq/208 · .json · Public domain