Case ID: nj-eq_80/html/0253-01.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

Dorothea Nagle, respondent, v. Harry Conard et al., appellants.
    [Argued March 7th, 1912.
    Decided June 20th, 1912.]
    On appeal from -a decree of the court of chancery advised by Yiee-Chaneellor Howell, whose opinion is reported in 79 N. J. Eq. (9 Buch.) 124.
    
    
      Mr. Frank J. Iliggins, Mr. Thomas Brown and Messrs. Woodbridge & March> for the respondent.
    
      Mr. Adrian Lyon, for the appellants.
   Per Curiam.

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

' For affirmance—The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Kalisoh, Bogert, Ykedenburgei, Vroom, Congdon, White, Treacy—15.

For reversal—Hone.