Kurtz v. Busch
| Citation | 128 A. 552 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 419.,419. |
| Parties | KURTZ v. BUSCH et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.
Action by Joseph Kurtz against Adolph Busch and another. Judgment for plaintiff, arid defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued January term, 1925, before TRENCHARD, MINTURN, and LLOYD, JJ.
Atwood C. Wolf, of Jersey City, for appellants.
Heyman & Heyinan, of Jersey City, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff by the First district court of Jersey City. The action was to recover the sum of $500, deposit on an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, which among others contained these provisions:
"Said purchaser agrees to execute a contract of purchase on the following terms: price $20,400, deposited herewith $500, additional cash on signing the contract to be drawn and submitted August 14, 1924, $500, * * * by second mortgage at 6%, said mortgage to be reduced as follows, standing 5 years, interest every six months, $6,400, * * * contract will be drawn, executed and acknowledged by said parties August 14, 1924."
The defendants tendered an agreement calling for a first installment mortgage of $9,000 and a provision that certain encroachments on the public highway should be excepted. These conditions the plaintiff refused to accept and the defendants indicating a purpose to stand on them, the present action was brought.
The trial judge, deeming the contract incomplete, and also that the title was incumbered by the street encroachments, gave judgment for the plaintiff. Appellants contend that the judgment was not justified upon either ground.
It is apparent that the memorandum was but s. tentative agreement which should be a guide in the drawing of a formal contract. It will be noted that the formal contract is not only to be drawn but submitted. Why submit if not subject to rejection if not satisfactory on the points still left open? The important point of the installment mortgage was left undetermined, and the purchaser may well have declined to accede to the reduction provided for in the agreement, and he certainly was not obliged to accept a substitution of a first mortgage for the second as subject to the payment of installments.
In Wharton v. Stoutenburgh, 35 N. J. Eq. 273, Justice Depue speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals says:
"The fact that parties negotiating a contract contemplated that a formal agreement should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comerata v. Chaumont, Inc., A--411
...were we to concede the truth of plaintiff's pleaded version of the express agreement between the parties. See Kurtz v. Busch, 3 N.J.Misc. 389, 391, 128 A. 552 (Sup.Ct.1925); cf. Morris v. Ballard, 56 App.D.C. 383, 16 F.2d 175, 176, 49 A.L.R. 1461 On this appeal, however, plaintiff's princip......
-
Morgan Realty Co. v. Pazen
...executed and delivered. Kuskin v. Guttman, 98 N. J. Eq. 617, 130 A. 829, affirmed 99 N. J. Eq. 887, 132 A. 922; Kurtz V. Busch (N. J. Sup.) 128 A. 552; Bettcher v. Knapp, supra; Venino v. Naegele, 99 N. J. Eq. 183, 131 A. 895; Schneider v. Crawford, 99 N. J. Eq. 249, 131 A. 687; Zukman v. I......
-
Woodruff v. Camp, 38066
...110 So. 306; Robinson v. Batzer, 195 Mich. 235, 161 N.W. 879; Seidlek v. Bradley, 293 Pa. 379, 142 A. 914, 68 A.L.R. 134; Kurtz v. Busch, 128 A. 552, 3 N.J.Misc. 389; Bishoff v. Myers, 101 Okl. 36, 223 P. 165 and Weber v. Hulbert, 225 Ill.App. 321. And see, generally, Annotation 59 A.L.R. 1......
-
Stuart & Wood., Inc. v. Palisades Prop. & Operating Corp.
...interferes, be used to vex and injure complainant. The deposit could be recovered at law even though the contract is incomplete. Kurtz v. Busch, 128 A. 552, 3 N. J. Misc. 389. Can complainant have similar relief in this court? That depends, I take it, upon whether it has a vendee's lien. A ......