Case ID: nj-eq_104/html/0612-01.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

Connie J. Dorrian et al., appellants, v. Royden B. Davis et al., respondents.
    [Decided May 20th, 1929.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll, who filed the following opinion:
    
      “My attention has been called to the fact that the memorandum filed in this case did not specifically state what facts were found to authorize .a decree that the counter-claim be sustained.
    “I found as a fact that the contract between the parties in question was not a binding agreement upon any of the parties therein mentioned, and therefore advised a decree that the securities and cash which had been delivered and paid by reason of the terms of said contract, which at the time was expected to be signed by all parties, should be returned to the parties who had delivered the securities and paid the money, and thereupon advised a decree in accordance with that view/’
    
      Mr. Garitón Godfrey and Mr. William I. Garrison, for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Clarence L. Gole and Messrs. Bourgeois & Goulomb, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — The Ohiee-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisoh, Van Buskirk, McG-lennon, JJ. 6.

For reversal — Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Kays, Dear, JJ. 5.