Schweitzer v. Schneider
This text of 98 A. 1086 (Schweitzer v. Schneider) 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.
Opinion
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.
[257]*257No. 27—
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisce, Black, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
98 A. 1086, 86 N.J. Eq. 256, 1 Stock. 256, 1916 N.J. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schweitzer-v-schneider-nj-1916.