Case ID: nj-eq_102/html/0326-01.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

Lewis Wurst et al., complainants-respondents, v. Anna Mary Branin et vir., defendants-appellants.
    [Submitted October 29th, 1927.
    Decided February 6th, 1928.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning.
    
      Mr. George D. Bothermel, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Robert J. Tait Paul, for the respondents.
   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.