Overbeck v. Overbeck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Overbeck v. Overbeck

15 A.2d 611, 128 N.J. Eq. 181, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 641

DecidedOctober 10, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.2d 611 (Overbeck v. Overbeck) 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

Overbeck v. Overbeck, 15 A.2d 611, 128 N.J. Eq. 181, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 641 (N.J. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery dismissing the appellant’s bill of complaint. The complainant prayed that the court set aside a deed by which she conveyed certain property to the defendants below on the theory that the said deed was obtained “by fraud and duress and without the benefit of independent advice.” After hearing, the court found that the complainant had not made out her contention and the bill was dismissed. We are in complete accord with the views expressed by the learned Vice-Chancellor on these particulars of the case (Ibid. 124. N. J. Eq. 555). In its final decree, however, the court allowed the successful party a counsel fee of $750 and this allowance *182 is challenged as excessive under point two of the brief. Our view is that the allowance made is too high. The counsel fee will therefore be reduced to $250 and the decree will be modified to that extent and as so modified will be affirmed.

For modification and affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donees, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery dismissing the appellant’s bill of complaint. The complainant prayed that the court set aside a deed by which she conveyed certain property to the defendants below on the theory that the said deed was obtained “by fraud and duress and without the benefit of independent advice.” After hearing, the court found that the complainant had not made out her contention and the bill was dismissed. We are in complete accord with the views expressed by the learned Vice-Chancellor on these particulars of the case (Ibid. 124. N. J. Eq. 555). In its final decree, however, the court allowed the successful party a counsel fee of $750 and this allowance *182 is challenged as excessive under point two of the brief. Our view is that the allowance made is too high. The counsel fee will therefore be reduced to $250 and the decree will be modified to that extent and as so modified will be affirmed.

For modification and affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donees, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.2d 611, 128 N.J. Eq. 181, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overbeck-v-overbeck-nj-1940.