De Marco v. Estlow, A--383

Decision Date22 September 1952
Docket NumberNo. A--383,A--383
Citation21 N.J.Super. 356,91 A.2d 272
PartiesAnthony R. DE MARCO, plaintiff-appellant, v. Francis ESTLOW, defendant-respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

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 cases
  • Presten v. Sailer
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 26, 1988
    ...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 (App.Div.1952). These cases, however, are distinguishable from those involving the division of profits from the sale of land which have been he......
  • Lahue v. Pio Costa
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 8, 1993
    ...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 if there has not been......
  • Kopp, Inc. v. United Technologies, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 3, 1988
    ...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 relied u......
  • Schnakenberg v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Ass'n
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • September 30, 1955
    ...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 to dismiss the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT