Silzer v. New Brunswick Trust Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Silzer v. New Brunswick Trust Co.

192 A. 510, 121 N.J. Eq. 611, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 561

DecidedApril 30, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A. 510 (Silzer v. New Brunswick 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

Silzer v. New Brunswick Trust Co., 192 A. 510, 121 N.J. Eq. 611, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 561 (N.J. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity.

The relationship between appellant and respondent was that of debtor and creditor. The bill does not, as contended by appellant, state a case for the termination of an express trust, and the execution of a resulting trust arising in consequence thereof; nor does it allege any other ground for equitable interposition. If the condition of the contract has been fulfilled, there is, so far as the bill discloses, an adequate remedy at law.

The decree is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetpield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Cole, JJ. 15. For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur in the conclusion of the learned vice-chancellor that the bill should be dismissed for want of equity.

The relationship between appellant and respondent was that of debtor and creditor. The bill does not, as contended by appellant, state a case for the termination of an express trust, and the execution of a resulting trust arising in consequence thereof; nor does it allege any other ground for equitable interposition. If the condition of the contract has been fulfilled, there is, so far as the bill discloses, an adequate remedy at law.

The decree is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetpield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Cole, JJ. 15. For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A. 510, 121 N.J. Eq. 611, 1937 N.J. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silzer-v-new-brunswick-trust-co-nj-1937.