Case ID: nj-eq_80/html/0252-01.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 Vice-Chancellor Howell, whose opinion is reported in 79 N. J. Eq. (9 Buch.) 124.
    
    
      Mr. Thomas Brown, for the respondent.
    
      Mr. Adrian Lyon and Mr. Merritt Lane, 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 Vice-Chancellor Howell.

For affirmance—The Chibe-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Congdon, White, Treacy—15.

For reversal—Eone.