Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stephen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stephen

181 A. 50, 119 N.J. Eq. 36, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 589

DecidedOctober 9, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A. 50 (Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stephen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stephen, 181 A. 50, 119 N.J. Eq. 36, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 589 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Isaac A. Lee by his will directed that on the death of his wife her remains be interred by his side in the family vault, and her funeral expenses paid out of his estate. She survived him over twenty years, and died in 1933 leaving a will containing among other provisions the common clause directing her executor to pay debts and funeral expenses. The will named the complainant-respondent as executor. The remains of Mrs. Lee were interred as directed in her husband’s will, the respondent paid the funeral expenses in the first instance and claimed reimbursement from the husband’s estate, which being refused, it filed the bill in this case based on that claim with others.

*37 The vice-chancellor properly held that complainant’s primary duty was to pay the funeral expenses, and that such payment was not, nor was the clause in Mrs. Lee’s will, a waiver of the right to have the husband’s estate make reimbursement. We concur in his conclusions, and the decree under review is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal —None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Isaac A. Lee by his will directed that on the death of his wife her remains be interred by his side in the family vault, and her funeral expenses paid out of his estate. She survived him over twenty years, and died in 1933 leaving a will containing among other provisions the common clause directing her executor to pay debts and funeral expenses. The will named the complainant-respondent as executor. The remains of Mrs. Lee were interred as directed in her husband’s will, the respondent paid the funeral expenses in the first instance and claimed reimbursement from the husband’s estate, which being refused, it filed the bill in this case based on that claim with others.

*37 The vice-chancellor properly held that complainant’s primary duty was to pay the funeral expenses, and that such payment was not, nor was the clause in Mrs. Lee’s will, a waiver of the right to have the husband’s estate make reimbursement. We concur in his conclusions, and the decree under review is therefore affirmed.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal —None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A. 50, 119 N.J. Eq. 36, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camden-safe-deposit-trust-co-v-stephen-nj-1935.