Williams v. Sanacore

Decision Date03 January 1951
Docket NumberNo. A--465,A--465
Citation11 N.J.Super. 51,78 A.2d 91
PartiesWILLIAMS v. SANACORE. . Appellate Division
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Emanuel Gersten, Hillside, argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent (Edward E. Mishell, Maplewood, attorney).

Edward T. Miller, Newark, attorney for and of counsel with defendant-appellant, argued the cause.

Before Judges FREUND PROCTOR and ROGERS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ROGERS, J.A.D.

Judgment for $1000 was entered for plaintiff upon a jury verdict in her suit in the Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, for recovery of the deposit paid under her contract with defendant for the purchase of real estate.

The appeal is from this judgment and seeks, Inter alia, a review of the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment made at the close of the evidence in the entire case.

Plaintiff's claim was based upon her option under the contract to void it and to recover her down payment in the event that neither party to the agreement within six weeks from its date obtained a commitment for plaintiff for a $7000 mortgage upon the described premises. That neither party obtained the required commitment within time is admitted. It is also admitted that the parties frequently discussed the procurement of the mortgage during the prescribed period and that plaintiff's attorney requested and was granted permission to continue to seek the commitment even beyond the time afforded to plaintiff under the contract for the reason that she was the purchaser and the person who in the usual course would obtain the credit. The uncontroverted testimony is that the parties agreed verbally during the six-weeks' term to extend the time for each to obtain the mortgage but no definite time extension was fixed. The attorney acting for plaintiff under the agreement testified to his discussions with defendant's attorney in part as follows:

'We certainly discussed extension--Mr. Miller and myself. He said he would extend it with me and I said I would extend it with him, * * *'

'I said, 'Take a little more time on it. It's all right with me.'""

A letter from defendant's attorney to plaintiff's attorney mentions an extension granted to plaintiff and her attorney testified to it being carried beyond that date at his request. It is also admitted that plaintiff made a written application for a mortgage commitment two days after the six-week period provided for in the contract. Despite the extension agreements and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tiedemann v. Cozine
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 3, 1997
    ...Id. at 365, 233 A.2d 77. See also Schlecter v. Hollander, 11 N.J.Super. 236, 78 A.2d 279 (App.Div.1951) and Williams v. Sanacore, 11 N.J.Super. 51, 78 A.2d 91 (App.Div.1951). We determine that the statute of frauds does not bar an oral modification of a contract required to be in writing wh......
  • Nierman v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 15, 1957
    ...evidence in the usual sense; Lancaster v. Highlands Finance Corp., 117 N.J.L. 476, 189 A. 371 (E. & A.1937); Williams v. Sanacore, 11 N.J.Super. 51, 78 A.2d 91 (App.Div.1951); Bohn v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 16 N.J. 180, 108 A.2d 5 (1954)), was this:--The victim of the mishap was an ice ......
  • Hodes v. Dunsky, A--391
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • August 10, 1951
    ...that their motion should have been granted. They rely on Paradiso v. Mazejy, 3 N.J. 110, 69 A.2d 15 (1949); Williams v. Sanacore, 11 N.J.Super. 51, 78 A.2d 91 (App.Div.1951); Nissel v. Swinley, 76 N.J.L. 288, 69 A. 960 (Sup.Ct.1908); Schlecter v. Hollander, 11 N.J.Super. 236, 78 A.2d 279 (A......
  • Willow Brook Recreation Center, Inc. v. Selle
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • July 31, 1967
    ...rule exemplified by cases such as Schlecter v. Hollander, 11 N.J.Super. 236, 78 A.2d 279 (App.Div.1951), and Williams v. Sanacore, 11 N.J.Super. 51, 78 A.2d 91 (App.Div.1951), which hold that oral agreements extending the time for performance of contracts within the statute of frauds are va......
  • 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