Horner v. Huff

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Horner v. Huff

192 A. 370, 121 N.J. Eq. 610, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 560

DecidedApril 30, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A. 370 (Horner v. Huff) 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

Horner v. Huff, 192 A. 370, 121 N.J. Eq. 610, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 560 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill prayed for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement between the complainants and the decedent, Ephraim C. Favinger, whereby complainants were to receive all of said decedent’s property, both real and personal, at the time of his death, in return for services to be rendered by the complainants. The decedent died testate, leaving his entire estate to the respondent Mary R. Huff.

The sole issue in the case was one of fact, and the vice-chancellor who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony, concluded that the decedent had agreed to devise to the complainants the premises known as No. 1216 Hyde Park, in the city of Camden, but denied any further relief, on the grounds that the proof was insufficient to affect the remaining assets of the estate, and we concur.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Lloyd, Case, Heher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles-Keil, Cole, JJ. 11. For reversal — Parker, Bodine, Donges, Raeeerty, JJ. 4.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill prayed for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement between the complainants and the decedent, Ephraim C. Favinger, whereby complainants were to receive all of said decedent’s property, both real and personal, at the time of his death, in return for services to be rendered by the complainants. The decedent died testate, leaving his entire estate to the respondent Mary R. Huff.

The sole issue in the case was one of fact, and the vice-chancellor who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony, concluded that the decedent had agreed to devise to the complainants the premises known as No. 1216 Hyde Park, in the city of Camden, but denied any further relief, on the grounds that the proof was insufficient to affect the remaining assets of the estate, and we concur.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenchard, Lloyd, Case, Heher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles-Keil, Cole, JJ. 11. For reversal — Parker, Bodine, Donges, Raeeerty, JJ. 4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A. 370, 121 N.J. Eq. 610, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horner-v-huff-nj-1937.