Price v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 22 September 1887
• Citation: 10 A. 663
• Parties: PRICE v. MORGAN.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

10 A. 663

PRICE

v. MORGAN.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

September 22, 1887.

On bill for specific performance.

T. B. Harned, for complainant. M. R. Sooy, for defendant.

BIRD, V. C. The defendant, Morgan, owned land extending from the south-east to the north-west to a public road, by the side of which was a railroad. On the line of this railroad, and near by Morgan's north-west line, is a station. To the west or south-west of Morgan's tract and next to the said roads the lands were owned by other persons than the parties to this suit. These last-named lands were located between said roads and the lands of the complainant, Price. One W. R. W. and one M. W. each owned different parcels of these lands south-west of Morgan's land, and also adjoining lands of Price. The land of Price is also contiguous to Morgan's on the south-west. Their lands adjoin for some distance. So far as I can discover, the line which separates these lands—Morgan's, on the one side, and all the others named, on the other—is very nearly straight. Such line is not at right angles with the line of said roads by several degrees. Morgan had been the owner of his land for some time before Price purchased, and had mapped and laid out a portion of it, about two blocks in width, next to said roads, in avenues, streets, and lots, and had offered the lots for sale. One of these avenues he called Garfield avenue, and one Morgan. As projected, they were at right angles with the lines of said roads, and, if extended over the lands of said W. and of said Price, would cross the division line at very sharp angles, leaving, of course, on either side small triangular parcels of land, almost worthless for building purposes.

Immediately after Price purchased, Morgan called upon him and urged him to join with him in a plan of mapping all of their lands in streets, avenues, and lots, for the public and for sale. At length they agreed so to do, but without writing. Though there was no writing, I think so much has been done as to take the case out of the statute. To succeed in the plan proposed it was necessary to have the consent of the W.'s, and it appears from what the W.'s afterwards did that their reliance on them to join in the movement was not in vain, although there is nothing to show that either of the W.'s took any part in the agreement. The parties, Price and Morgan, made a verbal agreement to unite in laying out their lands, and to exchange with each other, parcel for parcel, wherever the streets crossed the land line and formed such triangular pieces as aforesaid, so that each could be accommodated at that point with a rectangular lot of the same dimensions as the adjoining lots." The W.'s have conveyed so much of their lands as are necessary for the main design, and, as will be seen, Price and Morgan have also made conveyances. Morgan...