Schwarz v. Regan

• Decision Date: 06 January 1903
• Citation: 64 N.J.E. 139,53 A. 1086
• Parties: SCHWARZ v. REGAN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

53 A. 1086

64 N.J.E. 139

SCHWARZ

v. REGAN et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 6, 1903.

Suit by Jacob L. Schwarz against Mary Regan and another. Bill dismissed.

Frederick Jay, for complainant.

Henry Halm, for defendants.

EMERY, V. C. This bill is filed to compel the specific performance of a contract by a married woman and her husband to convey lands belonging to the married woman. The contract, as alleged by the bill, is evidenced by a memorandum in writing signed by the husband and wife on June 2, 1902, containing the terms of the contract, which are set out in the bill. The contract does not appear to have been acknowledged by the married woman in the manner provided by the thirty-ninth section of the act respecting conveyances (Revision 1898, P. L. 1898, p. 685). The invalidity of the contract, by reason of the omission of the married woman to acknowledge it, is one of the reasons specified for striking out the bill. That this reason is well founded is settled in this court by the decision of Vice Chancellor Stevens in Corby v. Drew (1896) 55 N. J. Eq. 387, 391, 36 Atl. 827, where it was expressly held that, under the then existing laws, a contract for sale of lands which had not been acknowledged according to law could not be specifically enforced in equity against a married woman. In Goldstein v. Curtis (May, 1902; N. J. Ch.) 52 Atl. 218, 221, Vice Chancellor Pitney held that, by virtue of the additional provision made in this section 39 as to the effect of the acknowledgment of the deed upon the married woman's estate, a contract which had been acknowledged could now be enforced. The decision in Corby v. Drew has not been questioned in any court, and it has been followed by Vice Chancellor Stevenson, in a late case (Osten v. Oesman—Sept, 1902; Mem. Dec), as settling the law in this court. In this case, also, the bill for specific performance against a married woman was dismissed because the contract had not been acknowledged according to law. So far as relates to the present question, the law as to married women is still the same as when the decision in Corby v. Drew was rendered.

Upon the authority of these decisions, the bill must be dismissed.