# Moore v. Baker

> New Jersey Court of Chancery · July 16, 1901 · 62 N.J. Eq. 208

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7291517

## Case

- **Full name:** Arthur W. Moore v. Ida R. Baker
- **Court:** New Jersey Court of Chancery
- **Decided:** July 16, 1901
- **Citations:** 62 N.J. Eq. 208; 17 Dickinson 208; 49 A. 836; 1901 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 66
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Stevens
- **Judges:** Stevens
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7291517

## Opinion text

Stevens, Y. C.
The only question raised by the demurrer is whether a vendor may bring a suit for specific performance against vendee to recover purchase-money. This question was answered in the affirmative by Chancellor Green, in Hopper v. Hopper, 1 C. E. Gr. 147. The decision in Miller v. Cameron, 18 Stew. Eq. 96, is to the same effect, and the rule seems thoroughly settled. Brown v. Hoff, 5 Paige 240 ; Sugd. Vend. & P. *244 ch. 5 § 4; Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1402, 1405, 1407; Story Eq. Jur. §§ 723, 790, 796. In Fry Spec. Perf. *10 § 23, the grounds upon which the court proceeds are fully stated.
I think the demurrer should be overruled.-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7291517. Public record. Not legal advice.