Case ID: nj-eq_69/html/0831-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Grace Livingston Furniss et al., appellants, v. William H. Leupp, trustee, respondent.
    [Submitted July 10th, 1905.
    Decided March 5th, 1906.]
    On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in £7 N. J. Fq. 159.
    
    
      Messrs. Grouse & PerTcins, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Willard P. Yoorhees, for the respondent.
   Pee Cueiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the vice-chancellor.

It will appear from an examination of the opinion that the learned vice-chancellor concluded that the fund in dispute was not within the scope of the “anticipation” clause of the trust deed, and in this conclusion we concur. The case, therefore, does not call for a consideration of the question whether or not that clause is valid. It was assumed to be so by the learned vice-chancellor. As the question is not involved in the determination of the case, we express no opinion upon it.

For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Gabeison, Poet, Gabbetson, Pitney, Swayze, Bogebt, Vbedbnbubgh, Vboom, Geeen, Geay, Dill—13.

For reversal—Done.