From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Latt v. Schwehm

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 16, 1933
168 A. 660 (N.J. 1933)

Opinion

Argued May 24, 1933 —

Decided October 16, 1933.

On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court.

For the appellants, Harcourt Steelman.

For the respondent, Albert C. Abbott and Thomas G. Siddal.


The judgment in this case will be affirmed. Judge Sooy properly inquired as to whether the parties to the agreement of sale had, in fact, subsequent to the execution thereof, modified it to the extent of releasing the vendee from his covenant of assumption of the mortgage covering the lands. Dieckman v. Walser, 114 N.J. Eq. 382, decided at the current (May, 1933) term of this court. The evidence supports the finding of the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 14.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Latt v. Schwehm

Court of Errors and Appeals
Oct 16, 1933
168 A. 660 (N.J. 1933)
Case details for

Latt v. Schwehm

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS LATT AND ROSE LATT, TO THE USE OF EMANUEL MALAMUT…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Oct 16, 1933

Citations

168 A. 660 (N.J. 1933)
168 A. 660

Citing Cases

Weinberg v. Wilensky

The defendants appeal therefrom. The first ground of reversal urged by the defendants is that the contract as…

Tomlinson v. Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc.

The mortgagor may not recover from his vendee. It will be noted that there is no allegation in the bill of…