Case ID: nj-eq_77/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John D. Van Horn, complainant-appellant, v. Samuel R. Demarest, Jr., executor, et al., defendants-respondents.
    [Argued March 4th and 7th, 1910.
    Decided June 20th, 1910.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Yiee-Chancellor Stevenson, whose opinion is reported in 76 N. J. Eq. (6 Buch.) 386.
    
    
      Mr. Blmer W. Demarest, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Peter W. Siagg, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The decreepn this ease should be affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson. We are not to be understood, however, as holding that the case was one of equitable jurisdiction. Ho objection was made on this ground, and it would be wrong to dismiss the bill for that reason at this stage of the proceedings.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Gray, Dili, Congdon — 14.

For reversal — Hone.