Thomas v. Thomas

101 A. 1055, 87 N.J. Eq. 668, 2 Stock. 668, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 474

Opinion

Per Curiam.

From the testimony taken before the advisory master we reach the same conclusion that he did, viz., that the petition of the appellant should be dismissed. The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed.

For 'affirmance—Garrison, Swayze, Trenctiard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, IIeppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner—13. ■ • For reversal—None.