Wittnebert v. Wittnebert

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Wittnebert v. Wittnebert

2 N.J. Misc. 543, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 158

DecidedJune 19, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 543 (Wittnebert v. Wittnebert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wittnebert v. Wittnebert, 2 N.J. Misc. 543, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 158 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Church, Y. C.

As I indicated from the bench, I have decided that the deed in this case should be sot aside, as it is evident from the deed itself and the testimony in the case that it was altered after execution, and I direct that a new deed be prepared, giving the property in question to Henry Wittnebert and Anna Wittnebert as tenants in common and not joint tenants.

As to the money withdrawn from the bank, I am of the opinion that Henry Wittnebert had the benefit of it, and I, therefore, shall dismiss the petition for its return to him.

As to the third phase of the question, it appears that the complainant himself tore down the buildings and removed the machinery, and he has no claim as to this.

1 have waited for briefs of counsel in this matter quite patiently and have decided to wait no longer.

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

Church, Y. C.

As I indicated from the bench, I have decided that the deed in this case should be sot aside, as it is evident from the deed itself and the testimony in the case that it was altered after execution, and I direct that a new deed be prepared, giving the property in question to Henry Wittnebert and Anna Wittnebert as tenants in common and not joint tenants.

As to the money withdrawn from the bank, I am of the opinion that Henry Wittnebert had the benefit of it, and I, therefore, shall dismiss the petition for its return to him.

As to the third phase of the question, it appears that the complainant himself tore down the buildings and removed the machinery, and he has no claim as to this.

1 have waited for briefs of counsel in this matter quite patiently and have decided to wait no longer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 543, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wittnebert-v-wittnebert-njch-1924.