Case ID: nj-eq_73/html/0734-01.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

William E. Ten Broeck and Emma Jane Jackson, appellants, v. Charles A. Jackson, executor, &c., et al., respondents.
    T Submitted December 9th, 1907.
    Decided March 2d, 1908.]
    On appeal from a decree of the former chancellor advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, whose opinion is reported in 71 N. J. Eq. (1 Buck,.) &88.
    
    
      Mr. Freeman Woodbridge, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Alan H._ Strong, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

In our opinion the learned vice-chancellor correctly held that the essential allegations upon which depended the right of the complainants to relief were not supported by satisfactory evidence.

We have not found it necessary to consider the question of laches.

The decree dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Bogert, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill — 13.

For reversal — None.