Case ID: nj-eq_105/html/0736-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Austin J. Waldron, Incorporated, complainant-respondont, v. Juliette V. Cutley, defendant-appellant.
    [Decided February 3d, 1930.]
    
      Mr. Elmer W. Bomine, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Pilgrim & Bilger, for- the respondent.
   Pee Curiam.

The vice-chancellor found that the false representations alleged to have been made as an inducement to the making of the contract in this case were not proved. 105 N. J. Eq. 586. In this we concur. This being true, it is unnecessar3r to pass upon his further conclusion of law that even if proved such representations would not constitute a defense to the bill for specific performance.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchabd, Pakkee, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Yan Buskibk, McG-lennon, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.