De Marco v. Estlow, No. A--383
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 21 N.J.Super. 356,91 A.2d 272 |
| Docket Number | No. A--383 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1952 |
| Parties | Anthony R. DE MARCO, plaintiff-appellant, v. Francis ESTLOW, defendant-respondent. |
Page 356
v.
Francis ESTLOW, defendant-respondent.
Appellate Division.
Decided Sept. 22, 1952.
James D. Stockwell, Camden, for appellant (Bleakly, Stockwell & Zink, Camden, attorneys).
James M. Davis, Jr., Mt. Holly, for respondent.
Before Judges McGEEHAN, BIGELOW and SMALLEY.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge Haneman in his opinion filed in the Chancery Division and reported in 18 N.J.Super. 30, 86 A.2d 446.
To continue reading
Request your trial
11 practice notes
-
Presten v. Sailer
...v. Waldons, 60 N.J.Eq. 71, 79, 47 A. 187 (Ch.1900). See DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34-35, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.1952), aff'd 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 These cases, however, are distinguishable from those involving the division of profits from the sale of land which have been held n......
-
Lahue v. Pio Costa
...to an oral agreement, even if costly, are not sufficient, DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.), aff'd o.b., 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1952). Even if the performance clearly demonstrates the existence of an oral agreement, the statute cannot be avoided......
-
Kopp, Inc. v. United Technologies, Inc.
...138 N.J.Eq. 586, 591-592, 49 A.2d 431 (Ch.Div.1946); DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), aff'd o.b. 21 N.J.Super. 356 (App.Div.1952). It is fundamental that in order to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds on the basis of part performance, the acts reli......
-
Schnakenberg v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Ass'n, No. A--480
...allegations of the complaint for the purposes of the motions. DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), affirmed 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1954); Orrok v. Parmigiani, 32 N.J.Super. 70, 107 A.2d 815 (App.Div.1954). The court could consider them as motions ......
Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
-
Presten v. Sailer
...v. Waldons, 60 N.J.Eq. 71, 79, 47 A. 187 (Ch.1900). See DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34-35, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.1952), aff'd 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 These cases, however, are distinguishable from those involving the division of profits from the sale of land which have been held n......
-
Lahue v. Pio Costa
...to an oral agreement, even if costly, are not sufficient, DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.), aff'd o.b., 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1952). Even if the performance clearly demonstrates the existence of an oral agreement, the statute cannot be avoided......
-
Kopp, Inc. v. United Technologies, Inc.
...138 N.J.Eq. 586, 591-592, 49 A.2d 431 (Ch.Div.1946); DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 34, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), aff'd o.b. 21 N.J.Super. 356 (App.Div.1952). It is fundamental that in order to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds on the basis of part performance, the acts reli......
-
Schnakenberg v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Ass'n, No. A--480
...allegations of the complaint for the purposes of the motions. DeMarco v. Estlow, 18 N.J.Super. 30, 86 A.2d 446 (Ch.Div.1952), affirmed 21 N.J.Super. 356, 91 A.2d 272 (App.Div.1954); Orrok v. Parmigiani, 32 N.J.Super. 70, 107 A.2d 815 (App.Div.1954). The court could consider them as motions ......
Request a trial to view additional results