Tansey v. Suckoneck
| Decision Date | 19 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 34.,34. |
| Citation | 130 A. 528 |
| Parties | TANSEY v. SUCKONECK. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Michael J. Tansey against Heime Suckoneck for specific performance. From a decree dismissing complainant's bill, he appeals. Affirmed.
Kraemer & Siegler, of Newark, for appellant.
Samuel Eoessler, of Newark, for respondent.
This is a vendor's suit for specific performance of the stipulations of a paper writing, relied on by complainant as a contract to purchase real estate. No answer was filed, but, on motion, the Vice Chancellor advised a dismissal of the bill of complaint, and the appeal is from this decree of dismissal.
We conclude that the decree should be affirmed on the fundamental ground presently to be stated, without passing on the other reasons assigned in the court below.
The paper writing relied on was on a business letterhead of the complainant, and, omitting the printed heading, reads as follows:
It is to be observed that this paper does not specify how much additional amount is to be paid on November 7, nor what all the terms of the formal agreement are to be; nor does it state the rate of interest on the mortgage or how long it is to run, or whether it is to contain any provisions for default of interest, taxes, etc., common in such cases; nor does it state what kind of deed is to be given. It is further to be observed that the clause, "formal agreement to be executed and additional amount paid on November 7, 1924," points clearly to another and definite agreement which should normally settle all outstanding details of the transaction.
The Vice Chancellor, in his memorandum of decision, specified seven particulars in which he held the paper to be incomplete, and while conceding that some of these, under decisions cited by him, might be supplied by 130 A. 34 intendment, went on to say that the others could not be so supplied, because the parties evidently intended that they should be set forth in the formal agreement referred to in the paper; and added that it was clear "* * * that the parties had not completed their negotiations, * * * and that they intended by the execution of the formal agreement to supply the deficiencies in, or these omissions of, this receipt."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentzen v. H. N. Ranch, Inc.
...would be such as he might thereafter consent to, and that there was, therefore, no agreement between the parties. In Tansey v. Suckoneck, 98 N.J.Eq. 669, 130 A. 528, 529, the court in discussing a contract for the sale of real estate in which the terms of payment had been left to future neg......
-
Cauco v. Galante
...55 (Ch.1869) affirmed 23 N.J.Eq. 512 (E. & A. 1872); Moore v. Galupo, 65 N.J.Eq. 194, 55 A. 628 (Ch.1903); and Tansey v. Suckoneck, 98 N.J.E.q. 669, 130 A. 528 (E. & A. 1925), in support of this proposition. Our analysis of the cited cases leads us to a different conclusion. The rationale o......
-
DeVries v. Evening Journal Ass'n
...and their minds meet upon them, it is not a contract, although as to some matters they may be agreed', Tansey v. Suckoneck, 98 N.J.Eq. 669, 671, 130 A. 528, 529 (E. & A.1925). If the defendant had furnished specifications which the plaintiff could not meet at the price fixed surely the plai......
-
Loancraft, LLC v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc.
...an unenforceable agreement to agree." (Pl.'s Br. Opp'n Mot. Dismiss 10 (internal quotation marks omitted) (relying on Tansey v. Suckoneck, 130 A. 528, 529 (N.J. 1925)).) Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the parties' decision not to designate a specific method of alternative dispute resolu......