Case Name: Austin J. Waldron, Incorporated, complainant-respondont, v. Juliette V. Cutley, defendant-appellant
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1930-02-03
Citations: 105 N.J. Eq. 736
Docket Number: 
Parties: Austin J. Waldron, Incorporated, complainant-respondont, v. Juliette V. Cutley, defendant-appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 736–736

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.