Dawson v. Leschziner
Decision Date | 15 January 1907 |
Citation | 72 N.J.E. 1,65 A. 449 |
Parties | DAWSON v. LESCHZINER et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Malvina V. Dawson against Siegfried Leschziner and others. Demurrer to bill overruled.
Samuel F. Leber, for demurrants. Henry H. Dawson, opposed.
MAGIE, Ch. The bill demurred to presents the following facts: Complainant was the owner of real estate in the city of Newark, and employed the defendants, who were at that time partners conducting a real estate business in Newark, to sell her property at the price of $5,500. The defendants notified complainant that they had an offer of $5,000 for the property, and advised her to accept it. Thereafter, the complainant agreed to sell her property for $5,062, which she was assured by the defendants was the best price they could obtain for it, and she signed an agreement to convey the property to Hugo Sutor for $5,062. Afterward, complainant, with her husband, executed and delivered a deed for the property to Hugo Sutor for $5,062, for which price the complainant received a bond and mortgage for $4,000, and the balance of the purchase price in cash, less the brokerage charged by the defendants. Since that time, complainant has discovered that Sutor, instead of paying to defendants for complainant $5,062 for the property, really paid them $5,500; that Sutor had previously told the defendants that he would pay $5,500 for the property, before complainant signed the agreement to sell for $5,002, which fact was fraudulently concealed from complainant by the defendants. Defendants, instead of accounting to complainant for $5,500, the amount received by them, only accounted to her for $5,062. Upon these statements, the complainant prayed for an accounting, and a decree directing the defendants to pay to the complainant $438, less 2 1/2 per cent. commission.
The defendants present several grounds of demurrer. The first, and the one principally argued is that the complainant has adequate relief at law, and may there recover the amount which she now seeks to have decreed to be paid to her. This court has a general jurisdiction in cases of fraud, as well in cases where the remedy at law is plainly adequate and complete, as in other cases; but, when the remedy at law is plainly adequate and complete, the Court of Chancery is reluctant to exercise its jurisdiction, and will not do so unless the administration of justice will be thereby plainly facilitated. Eggers v. Anderson, 63 N. J. Eq. 264, 49 Atl. 578, 55 L. R. A. 570. It may, perhaps, be questioned whether the complainant has a complete and adequate remedy by a resort to an action at law. The case differs from that of Krueger v. Armitage, 58 N. J. Eq. 357, 44 Atl. 167, and from Polhemus v. Holland Trust Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 93, 45 Atl. 534, and Id., 61 N. J. Eq. 654, 47 Atl. 417. In each of the cases last stated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Stern
...exercise its jurisdiction, and will not do so unless the administration of justice will be thereby plainly facilitated." Dawson v. Leschziner, 72 N.J.Eq. 1, 65 A. 449; quoted and reiterated by the court of errors and appeals in Pridmore v. Steneck, supra. See, also, New Amsterdam Casualty C......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.
...equity." Eggers v. Anderson, supra. See, also, Hubbard v. International Mercantile Agency, 68 N. J. Eq. 434, 59 A. 24; Dawson v. Leschziner, 72 N. J. Eq. 1, 65 A. 449; Mazzolla v. Wilkie, 72 N. J. Eq. 722, 66 A. 584. In fraud cases there can be no question of jurisdiction in this court, but......
-
Pridmore v. Steneck
...Surety Co., 100 N.J. Eq. 92, 135 A. 511, affirmed 101 N.J.Eq. 738, 138 A. 919. As stated by Vice Chancellor Magie, in Dawson v. Leschziner, 72 N. J.Eq. 1, 65 A. 449, citing Eggers v. Anderson, supra, "when the remedy at law is plainly adequate and complete, the Court of Chancery is reluctan......
-
Downs v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co.
...63 N. J. Eq. 204, 49 A. 578, 55 L. R. A. 570; Hubbard v. International Mercantile Agency, 68 N. J. Eq. 434, 59 A. 24; Dawson v. Leschziner, 72 N. J. Eq. 1, 65 A. 449; Mazzolla v. Wilkie, 72 N. J. Eq. 722, 66 A. 584; Krueger v. Armitage, 58 N. J. Eq. 357, 44 A. 167; 21 C. J. 109. In a case s......