Case ID: nj-eq_106/html/0267-01.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

In the matter of the estate of Edwin M. Squier, deceased.
    [Argued and submitted October 23d, 1929.
    Decided May 19th, 1930.]
    
      
      Mr. Frank Hendrick (of the New York bar), for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Woolsey A. Shepard (of the New York bar) {Mr. Thomas J. Brogan, on the brief), for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The decree under review will be affirmed (with a minor qualification presently to be noted), for the reasons stated in the conclusions of the vice-ordinary.

The qualification is that the concluding language of the opinion seems to read for a dismissal of the appeal instead of an affirmance of the decree of the orphans court; and this language seems to be carried into the decree of the prerogative court. This is a mere slip of the pen, for it is clear that the affirmance was intended and should have been decreed. With this formal modification the decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parkee, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Van Bus-kirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.