Ryon v. Guarantee Trust Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ryon v. Guarantee Trust Co.

176 A. 575, 117 N.J. Eq. 502, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 678

DecidedJanuary 10, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A. 575 (Ryon v. Guarantee Trust Co.) 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

Ryon v. Guarantee Trust Co., 176 A. 575, 117 N.J. Eq. 502, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 678 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Yice-Chancellor Sooy in the court of chancery, with the following reservation: We consider that the transfer by an executor banking institution of the decedent’s funds on deposit with it at the time of the death to the separate account designated in the statute involves more than a mere bookkeeping entry; but this does not affect the conclusion reached by the vice-chancellor for the reason that, in our opinion, the trust company had, between December 27th, 1932, when it qualified as an executor, and February 23d, 1933, when it froze its assets, reasonable time within which to take the steps incident to the transfer.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodihe, Dohges, Heher, Perskie, Yah Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Yice-Chancellor Sooy in the court of chancery, with the following reservation: We consider that the transfer by an executor banking institution of the decedent’s funds on deposit with it at the time of the death to the separate account designated in the statute involves more than a mere bookkeeping entry; but this does not affect the conclusion reached by the vice-chancellor for the reason that, in our opinion, the trust company had, between December 27th, 1932, when it qualified as an executor, and February 23d, 1933, when it froze its assets, reasonable time within which to take the steps incident to the transfer.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodihe, Dohges, Heher, Perskie, Yah Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A. 575, 117 N.J. Eq. 502, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryon-v-guarantee-trust-co-nj-1935.