Case ID: nj-eq_98/html/0728-01.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

Mary H. Mullen, respondent, v. Mary Serefin Mullen et al., appellants.
    [Argued May term, 1925.
    Decided October 19th, 1925.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Fielder, whose opinion is reported in 98 N. J. Eq. 90.
    
    
      Mr. Merritt Lane, for the appellants.
    
      Messrs. Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Fielder.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice/ Parker, Minturn, Kalisctt, Black, Kays, JJ. 6.

For reversal — Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, JJ. 5.