Simeone v. Varloro, 33.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation152 A. 173
Docket NumberNo. 33.,33.
PartiesSIMEONE et al. v. VARLORO et al.
Decision Date20 October 1930

Appeal from Court of Chancery.

Suit by Erminia Simeone and another against Dominick Varloro and another. From a decree for complainants, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

The opinion of the Vice Chancellor was as follows:

"My consideration of the aforesaid matter actuates me in determining that the relief prayed for by the complainants, in their amended bill of complaint filed May 23, 1927, should be granted. I am convinced that James Nolan, who was the draftsman of the contract bearing date February 16, 1924, and also the deed bearing date March 29, 1924, recorded in the register's office of the county of Hudson, March 31, 1924, in Book 1512 of Deeds, on page 546, and also the bond and mortgage bearing date March 29, 1924, which mortgage was recorded March 31, 1924, in Book 1230 of Mortgages on page 68, did not appreciate the intention of the parties. Mr. Nolan was not a lawyer. He was engaged in the real estate and insurance business. If the parties had a lawyer representing them in their business dealings, and particularly a lawyer of their own nationality (Italian), I believe the real intention of the parties would have been effectuated by proper instruments. The proofs indicate that on or about February 9, 1924, the defendants negotiated with the complainants for the purchase of a parcel of land known as lot No. 394 in block No. 15, fronting on Hillside Place, North Bergen, N. J., as shown on a map entitled 'Map of property belonging to the Estate of Hugh N. Camp, in the Township of North Bergen, Hudson County, New Jersey, County Block No. 2305, made by Thomas H. McCann, Civil Engineer, March, 1900, and filed in the office of the register of the County of Hudson, New Jersey, on October 14th, 1901, as Map No. 1240, subject to a certain mortgage lien then of record against said lot, in the amount of $2,800. on which there had been paid off the sum of $280, leaving a balance unpaid thereon of $2,520. After said business transaction had been consummated and a receipt given by the complainants for the sum of $100 on account of the purchase price of $5,400 agreed upon, the complainant, Frank Simeone, gratuitously offered to the defendants, with whom the complainants were on very friendly relations, an easement on a remaining parcel of property owned by the complainants, abutting Main street, so as to afford the defendants a means of exit to said street. As stated by Miss Rose Simeone in her testimony, her father stated that his purpose in so doing was to make it easier for the defendants, in wintertime, because Hillside Place is a very steep hill, hard for traveling, and Main street, being not so steep as Hillside Place, would serve as a better means of exit by the defendants from their Hillside Place property to gain access to Main street, I recall that at the hearing counsel had much difficulty in examining the complainant, Frank Simeone, and the court had much difficulty in understanding him. Part of his testimony, because of such difficulty, was given through an interpreter. The testimony of Rose Simeone, Lillian Smilari, Peter A. Simeone, and Frank Morano, was quite explicit, and clearly indicates, in my judgment, the intention between the parties. I do not appreciate that Mr. Nolan thoroughly understood what the complainants and the defendants intended" and contemplated. The proofs disclose that the complainant, Prank Simeone, undertook to explain to Mr. Nolan, by reference not only to a surveyor's sketch made by Robert Gaw, dated April 20, 1905, which was exhibited in court and with respect to which the witness was examined and cross-examined, upon which there are some pencil marks, to which said complainant referred, but also by reference...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Scult v. Bergen Val. Builders, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • August 15, 1962
    ...the agreement, equity will correct the mistake, so as to produce a conformity of the instrument to the agreement." Simeone v. Varloro, 107 N.J.Eq. 204, 208, 152 A. 173, 174 E. & A. 1930). See also Katchen v. Silberman, 109 N.J.Eq. 613, 614--615, 158 A. 427 (Ch.1932); Louis Stern Sons v. Con......
  • S. P. Dunham & Co. v. 26 East State St. Realty Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • December 28, 1943
    ...a reformation of the lease accordingly. Green v. Morris & E. R. Co., supra; Louis Stern Sons, Inc., v. Connolly, supra; Simeone v. Varloro, 107 N.J.Eq. 204, 152 A. 173. Remaining for consideration is the dispute relating to the openings between No. 13 and No. 15 North Broad Street. This is ......
  • Joffe v. Gliksman, 148/696.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • February 27, 1947
    ...reformation. Mayer v. West Side Development Co., 78 N.J.Eq. 415, 79 A. 620; Cochran v. Burns, 91 N.J.Eq. 7, 107 A. 476; Simeone v. Varloro, 107 N.J.Eq. 204, 152 A. 173; Katchen v. Silberman, 109 N.J.Eq. 613, 158 A. 427. See also Colton v. Piggage, 2 N.J.Misc. 490; Coady v. Ciccion, 2 N.J.Mi......
  • Paz v. DeSimone
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • January 9, 1976
    ...(the) instrument and agreement.' See also, Katchen v. Silberman, 109 N.J.Eq. 613, 158 A. 427 (Ch.Div.1932), and Simeone v. Varloro, 107 N.J.Eq. 204, 152 A. 173 (E. & A.1930). I find such rule of law to pertain here and hold the insurance policy to be so reformed as to reflect the exception ......
  • 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