Wurst v. Branin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wurst v. Branin

141 A. 922, 102 N.J. Eq. 326, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 594

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 6, 1928·Published

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Our examination of the decree below, and of the evidence upon which it is based, results in the conclusion that the decree is right.

The evidence required the application of the rule as to independent advice as laid down in Slack v. Rees, 66 N. J. Eq. 447, and Post v. Hagan, 71 N. J. Eq. 234. The vice-chancellor correctly applied the rule. The decree below will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Tbekchaed, Paekee, Mintuen, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Vak Buskiek, McGlenktoh, Kays, Heteibld, Deak, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Our examination of the decree below, and of the evidence upon which it is based, results in the conclusion that the decree is right.

The evidence required the application of the rule as to independent advice as laid down in Slack v. Rees, 66 N. J. Eq. 447, and Post v. Hagan, 71 N. J. Eq. 234. The vice-chancellor correctly applied the rule. The decree below will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Tbekchaed, Paekee, Mintuen, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Vak Buskiek, McGlenktoh, Kays, Heteibld, Deak, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Wurst v. Branin, 141 A. 922, 102 N.J. Eq. 326, 1928 N.J. LEXIS 594 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

141 A. 922 (Wurst v. Branin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.