Milchman v. Jayson

34 A.2d 407, 134 N.J. Eq. 165, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 434
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 4, 1943·Published

Opinions

The decree under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Stein.

The case is purely factual and we conclude that the testimony fully supports the views of the Vice-Chancellor, except the statement that "there was also expert testimony by a handwriting expert that the signature of the mother to the deed was genuine." We find no such testimony in the record. Nor could there be such testimony, for the deeds in question were not produced, there being a dispute as to the person in whose possession the controverted deeds were. Notwithstanding this apparent misstatement, we are of the opinion that the proofs amply support the decree. The decree being supported by the facts, it is unnecessary to discuss other questions raised.

The decree below will be affirmed.

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

Milchman v. Jayson, 34 A.2d 407, 134 N.J. Eq. 165, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 434 (N.J. 1943).

34 A.2d 407 (Milchman v. Jayson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Speer v. Speer
14 N.J. Eq. 240 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1862)
Hattersley v. Bissett
51 N.J. Eq. 597 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1893)
Schlicher v. Keeler
70 A. 1101 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1908)