Roemer v. Conlon

• Decision Date: 30 November 1888
• Citation: 19 A. 664,45 N.J.E. 234
• Parties: ROEMER v. CONLON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

19 A. 664

45 N.J.E. 234

ROEMER

v. CONLON et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. Term, 1888.

Appeal from court of chancery.

On motion to dissolve an in junction granted on the application of William Roemer against Patrick H. Conlon and John Conlon. After a hearing, Chancellor MCGILL filed the following conclusions:

"The injunction granted in this case restrains the further prosecution of an action at law. The defendants ask for its dissolution. The complainant puts his right to retain it on two grounds:

"First. That he was induced to enter into the contract sued on by fraud. The contract provides for sinking a well on the lands of the complainant. The complainant says the defendant made two false representations to him, and that by means of them he was induced to enter into the contract: First, he says that the defendant told him that it would not be necessary to sink the well lower than twenty-five feet below the point to which it was sunk when the contract was made, to get a sufficient supply of water for his purposes, and that the whole cost of the well would not exceed $125; and, second, that the defendant said that he had never done work of the kind he agreed to do for complainant for a price less than that which the complainant agreed to pay. The first of these representations is obviously a mere expression of opinion or judgment, and, even if it turned out to be mistaken or erroneous, would not constitute a sufficient foundation for either an action or a defense. Wise v. Fuller, 29 N. J. Eq. 259. Besides, the contract put the matter of depth and expense entirely in the hands of the complainant. He was at liberty to stop the work at any time after a depth of twenty-five feet had been reached. The second falsehood attributed to the defendant consists of a representation respecting a fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, if what he said respecting it was false, he committed a fraud But a complete and perfect defense on this ground, as well as in respect to the first matter charged as a misrepresentation, can be made at law. When that is the case, a court of equity cannot interfere without transcending its jurisdiction.

"The second ground on which the complainant insists that the injunction should be retained is that he can not make a full defense without a reformation of the contract; and therefore the court should retain jurisdiction, so that the contract may be reformed and full justice done. The complainant says that, during the negotiations which resulted in the contract, it was agreed that he should furnish the defendant with the steam necessary to be used in sinking the well, and that the defendant should credit him for the value of the coal which should be burned in excess of the amount ordinarily required for complainant's factory. Subse...