November 1888: Court interpretations of Statute of Frauds §4 were all over the map. “Why, for instance, should a sale of growing fruit be a contract for an interest in land…and a sale of growing potatoes not?” the Law Journal editors asked. “If the earth is a warehouse for sold timber…why should it not be for sold grass?” They found little help in the latest case, Lavery v. Pursell, holding that a sale of a house to be pulled down and taken away for building materials was a contract for an interest in land.
100 Years Ago
November 1913: Learning that the “exasperating” delay in issuing the 1913 Laws of the State was attributable to the printers, the Law Journal editors were chagrined that the contract was to be awarded to the same Hudson County house for 1914. The trouble, they said, was the statute was “explicit that a contract shall be awarded by the Printing Board to the lowest responsible bidder complying with the specifications.”
75 Years Ago
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
