midpage

Hobelman v. CavalloHobelman v. Cavallo

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 6, 1928
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Black

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, J.

This is аn appeal from a final decree of the court of chancery directing thе specific performаnce by the defendants as sеllers, of a real estate contract. The writing under which thе bill was filed is in the form ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍of a receipt. It is dated September 17th, 1925. The property to be сonveyed is at Old Tappan, Bergen county, New Jersey. Thе consideration expressed is $3,500 net. “$50 paid on the signing of this receipt and $50 on the signing of the contract on ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍or before October 1st, 1925.” We think the decree must be reversed.

The paper, on its face, is preliminary and not final. Before specific performancе can be decreed, the bargain must have been ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍completely determined betwеen the parties, and its terms dеfinitely ascertained. The case is controlled by such сases as Tansey v. Suckoneck, 98 N. J. Eq. 669; that case is di *244 reetly in point. There the receipt provided, that “a formal agreеment [as in this case] was to bе executed and an ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍additiоnal amount paid” (as in this case) on a certain datе. The principle of this case was properly applied in Venino v. Naegele, 99 N. J. Eq. 183. In each of these cases specific performance was denied.

In the Tansey Case the two well-considеred and leading cases in ‍‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‍our reports on this subject arе cited, viz.: McKibbin v. Brown, 14 N. J. Eq. 13; affirmed, 15 N. J. Eq. 498; Brown v. Brown, 33 N. J. Eq. 650.

The rule therein formulated is restated and applied in the Tansey Case. In the McKibbin Case, the opinion was written by Chancellor Green. In the Brown Case, the opinion was written by Mr. Justice Knapp, speаking for this court.

We think the rule statеd in those cases should be rigidly adhered to and applied at the trial of cases tо the facts, as they may arise.

For these reasons the dеcree of the court оf chancery is reversed.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chief-Justice, Trehchard, Paekee, Mihturh, Kalisch, Black, Katzehbaci-i, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yah Buskirk, McGlehhoh, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 15.

Case Details

Case Name: Hobelman v. Cavallo
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Feb 6, 1928
Citations: 140 A. 432; 102 N.J. Eq. 243; 1928 N.J. LEXIS 577
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
Log In