Home/Supreme Court of New Jersey/Heyer v. Sullivan

Heyer v. Sullivan

103 A. 1052, 88 N.J. Eq. 595, 3 Stock. 595, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 316
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 14, 1918·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the vice-chancellor that the gift was not established. We express no opinion on the other points discussed by him. Let the decree be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner — 12. For reversal — None.

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

Heyer v. Sullivan, 103 A. 1052, 88 N.J. Eq. 595, 3 Stock. 595, 1918 N.J. LEXIS 316 (N.J. 1918).

103 A. 1052 (Heyer v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ellis v. Ellis
111 A.2d 432 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Vanderbach v. Vollinger
64 A.2d 225 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1949)
Middlesex County Welfare Board v. Motolinsky
35 A.2d 463 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1944)
In Re Fay
20 A.2d 57 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1941)