Case ID: nj-eq_91/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur J. Anderson, administrator, &c., complainant-respondent, v. Broad Street National Bank of Trenton, defendant-appellant.
    [Argued June 25th, 1919.
    Decided March 1st, 1920.]
    On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, ■whose opinion is reported in 90 N. J. Eq. 78.
    
    
      Messrs. Wicoff & Banning, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Frederic B. Brace, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur in the view expressed by the learned vice-chancellor in his opinion filed in this cause, that the case is indistinguishable in principle from Sullivan v. Maroney, 77 N. J. Eq. 565, and that that decision is therefore controlling.

The decree will be affirmed.

For. affirm cunee — The Chief-Justice, Sway.ze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, HepPENHEniEB, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson — 14.

For reversal — None.