Schweitzer v. Schneider

98 A. 1086, 86 N.J. Eq. 256, 1 Stock. 256, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 452

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the vice-chancellor in his opinion which is not to be taken as deciding that the funds in controversy were not charged with a trust in the hands of the respondents, as a superficial reading might indicate, but rather as defining the class of persons for whose benefit such trust exists, while denying that it exists for the .benefit of a certain other class.

No. 26—

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayee, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Terhune, Heppenpieimee, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.

For reversal — Fone.

No. 27—

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisce, Black, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.

For reversal — None.