Oldfield v stoeco homes

Author: ywxk

August undefined, 2024

WebAt the sale Stoeco was the only and therefore the highest bidder for both the eastern and western groups of lots, bidding $ 10,525 for the former and $ 100,000 for the latter. The … WebSee Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246 (1958). An estate on condition is similar to an estate on limitation but is distinguishable therefrom in that upon the occurrence of the specified limitative event the divesture of the title of …

Property--Fee Simple Determinables--Distinguishing …

WebOldfield (plaintiff), a resident of Ocean City, filed suit in the Superior Court to have the resolutions declared void and to demand reversion of the property back to the city. The … WebStoeco Homes, Inc., supra, at 676. 41 At oral argument the government took the position that even the occupants of homes on the fully developed part of the Stoeco tract … memory\\u0027s f7

Lehigh Valley RR Co. v. Chapman :: 1961 - Justia Law

WebDec 6, 1991 · Attorney(s) appearing for the Case. Philip Baroff, for the appellants (defendants). Allan M. Cane, for the appellee (plaintiff). O'CONNELL, NORCOTT and FOTI, JS. WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246 (1958). In the three years and three months following confirmation of the sale, all of the tracts were cleared, graded and adapted as … Webv. STOECO HOMES Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents. No. A--73. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued Jan. 22, 1958. Decided March 3, 1958. Page 249 [139 A.2d 292] W. Louis Bossle, Camden, for plaintiffs-appellants. Robert K. Bell, Ocean City, for defendant-respondent Stoeco Homes, Inc. memory\\u0027s fu

BABB v. RAND 345 A.2d 496 Me. Judgment Law CaseMine

LEHIGH VALLEY R.R. CO. v. CHAPMAN 35 N.J. 177 N.J.

WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 139 A.2d 291, 296 (N.J. 1958) (the words "as long as" held to create a determinable fee). The Justice of the Supreme Court of Probate may have relied … WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes. Ocean City sells land to developer on condition to fill swampland and up to grade of city within a year, then extends court found 2 conditions, city waives time limit and developer can still meet condition of filling lots. Lewis v. searles. memory\\u0027s fb memory\\u0027s final chapter genshin impact

"WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes. Case that decided:While language is a primary guide for the ascertainment of whether the given deed attempts to condition or limit an estate, it is the instrument as a whole and not a particular phrase which provides the basis for comprehension. Oldfield v. Stoeco " - Oldfield v stoeco homes

Oldfield v stoeco homes

Webto ambiguity and its possible resolution. Part V addresses the interpreta-tion of speech acts communicated by action and inaction rather than by words. Even action and inaction can … WebTABLE OF CONTENTS xv Notes..... 124 Armory v. Delamirie..... 124 Notes..... 125

Did you know?

Webhighest bidder for both the eastern and western groups of lots, bidding $10,525 for the former and $100,000 for the latter. The sales were duly confirmed by two resolutions of … WebP.C.K. Properties Inc. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 112 Ohio App. 492, 176 N.E.2d 441 (1960). The court in the Oldfeld case said that "[tihe universal touch-stone today is the intention of the …

WebPerry, 83 Me. 447, 22 A. 373 (1891); see Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958). We need not resort to extrinsic evidence to resolve an ambiguity, for … WebThe only bidder was Defendant Stoeco Homes, and the winning bids were $10,525 for the eastern lots and $100,000 for the western lots. The sales were confirmed by municipal …

WebFox, supra; Board of Chosen Freeholders of Cumberland County v. Buck, 79 N.J. Eq. 472, 476 (Ch. 1912); Restatement, Property, § 44; 2 Powell, op. cit. § 187. To establish a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent the courts have required an express provision that upon the occurrence of that condition the grantor or his successors in ... WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N. J. 246, 256 (1958). See Simonds v. Simonds, 199 Mass. 552, 557 (1908). Examining the instrument as a whole, we find no intent to grant a fee simple determinable. If Taylor had so intended, he could simply have deeded the parcel to the trustees "so long as Troop 59 exists." Instead, Taylor created an express ...

WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958) Roberts v. Rhodes231 Kan. 74, 643 P.2d 116 (1982) Martin v. City of Seattle46 Wn. App. 1, 728 P.2d 1091 (Ct. App. …

WebSee Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958). After that litigation terminated in its favor Stoeco resumed its developmemt, but with a revised plot plan. No change was made in the openings to Back Thorofare, but within the premises in question the lagoon arrangement was revised from that shown on the 1951 application. ... memory\\u0027s fwWebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 254-55, 139 A.2d 291, 298 (1958); RE- STATEMENT OF PROPERTY § 44 (1936); 2 R. POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY … memory\\u0027s fzWebAlthough the matter is of no particular moment in the framework of the case before us, it is plain that the quoted language created a fee on a condition subsequent and not a determinable fee. Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958). memory\\u0027s h8WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc. Annotate this Case 26 N.J. 246 (1958) 139 A.2d 291 WINIFRED C. OLDFIELD, ET VIR., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. STOECO HOMES, INC., ET … memory\\u0027s fmWebPart V addresses the interpreta-tion of speech acts communicated by action and inaction rather than by ... See infra text accompanying notes 75-77; see also Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 139 A.2d 291 (1958) ("In the year 1564 it was not the intention of the parties that counted in memory\\u0027s g7WebOldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc.22 is such a good case for exhaustive analysis of the determinable fee that surely it should be postponed to a later chapter for its relation to recording, title assurance, covenants, and marketable title acts. At that point, it might illuminate why the Illinois court did so much better in sus- memory\\u0027s gfWebDec 4, 2009 · However, in the absence of extrinsic evidence, the court must determine a dispute concerning title by construing the deed as a whole, without giving disproportionate emphasis to any individual part of the document. See Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 255-56, 139 A.2d 291 (1958); Union County Indus. Park v. memory\\u0027s g2