Case ID: nj-eq_100/html/0345-01.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

Anna Dusenberry, appellant, v. Helen Ibach et al., executors, respondents.
    [Decided October 27th, 1926.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, whose opinion is reported in 99 N. J. Eq. 89.
    
    
      
      Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Maclcey & Maclcey, Mr. John M. Dolan, Mr. Frederick V. Watson, Mr. Charles C. Scott, and Messrs. Humphreys & Sumner, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the court below.

For affirmance — Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.