Hoehl v. Hibbert

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hoehl v. Hibbert

166 A. 170, 113 N.J. Eq. 114, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 995

DecidedApril 28, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A. 170 (Hoehl v. Hibbert) 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

Hoehl v. Hibbert, 166 A. 170, 113 N.J. Eq. 114, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 995 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The case was purely a fact case, and while the testimony was somewhat voluminous and contradictory, the only point really at issue was that decided by the vice-chancellor, viz., whether the deed to Joseph had been made without the consent of the other children and in fraud of their rights. The agreement made by the mother was in writing and provided that she would not convey without the written consent of the several children. The determinative question of fact was whether there had been such written consent. The vice-chancellor found that there had been and that it had been lost or purloined in some way. We have examined the evidence and concur fully in the result reached by the vice-chancellor.

The decree under review will therefore he affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchaed, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Yah Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. ' 14.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The case was purely a fact case, and while the testimony was somewhat voluminous and contradictory, the only point really at issue was that decided by the vice-chancellor, viz., whether the deed to Joseph had been made without the consent of the other children and in fraud of their rights. The agreement made by the mother was in writing and provided that she would not convey without the written consent of the several children. The determinative question of fact was whether there had been such written consent. The vice-chancellor found that there had been and that it had been lost or purloined in some way. We have examined the evidence and concur fully in the result reached by the vice-chancellor.

The decree under review will therefore he affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchaed, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Yah Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. ' 14.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A. 170, 113 N.J. Eq. 114, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoehl-v-hibbert-nj-1933.