Sanford v. Kaercher

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sanford v. Kaercher

12 A.2d 676, 127 N.J. Eq. 277, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 610

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 25, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow and reported in 126 N. J. Eq. 391.

We find no abuse of discretion in the allowance of counsel fees and costs to be paid out of the John C. Marsh share of the Sarah W. Marsh estate.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Heteibld, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeertt, Hague, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Donges, J. 1.

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

Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow and reported in 126 N. J. Eq. 391.

We find no abuse of discretion in the allowance of counsel fees and costs to be paid out of the John C. Marsh share of the Sarah W. Marsh estate.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Heteibld, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeertt, Hague, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Donges, J. 1.

Sanford v. Kaercher, 12 A.2d 676, 127 N.J. Eq. 277, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 610 (N.J. 1940).

Pincite

12 A.2d 676 (Sanford v. Kaercher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related