Case ID: nj-eq_136/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Hirschmann, complainant-appellee, v. Rose Hirschmann and Jonas Hirschmann, defendants, and Lillian Hirschmann, defendant-appellant.
    [Argued October 23d, 1944.
    Decided February 2d, 1945.]
    
      
      Mr. Hilion M. TJnger, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. A. Harry Moore, for the appellee.
   Pee Cueiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Egan, which is reported at 135 N. J. Eq. 23.

Appellant, in. her brief, discusses an item concerning household furniture. This item appears not to have been treated in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor nor disposed of by the decree entered in the court below. However, the point was not incorporated in the petition of appeal as a ground for reversal and, therefore, is not subject to examination by this court. New Jersey B. L. and I. Co. v. Lord, 66 N. J. Eq. 344, 350; Munger v. Munger, 130 N. J. Eq. 279, 286.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Peeskie, Poetee, Colie, Wells, Raeeekty, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.