Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, LATE OF THE BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, LAURA M. BRINTON AND ETHEL R. MERRILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, AND LYDIA MERRILL FRITZ, MARY WHITE WATKINS, ELEANOR CHAMBERLIN, EDWARD M. CHAMBERLIN AND LAURA CHAMBERLIN CAMPBELL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND JOAN ISELIN HYDE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. PETER MERRILL WATKINS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND ERIC WATKINS ET ALS., INFANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1960-05-23
Citations: 32 N.J. 341
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, LATE OF THE BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, LAURA M. BRINTON AND ETHEL R. MERRILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, AND LYDIA MERRILL FRITZ, MARY WHITE WATKINS, ELEANOR CHAMBERLIN, EDWARD M. CHAMBERLIN AND LAURA CHAMBERLIN CAMPBELL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND JOAN ISELIN HYDE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. PETER MERRILL WATKINS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND ERIC WATKINS ET ALS., INFANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 341–343

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, LATE OF THE BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, LAURA M. BRINTON AND ETHEL R. MERRILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JAMES MOSES, DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, AND LYDIA MERRILL FRITZ, MARY WHITE WATKINS, ELEANOR CHAMBERLIN, EDWARD M. CHAMBERLIN AND LAURA CHAMBERLIN CAMPBELL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND JOAN ISELIN HYDE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. PETER MERRILL WATKINS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND ERIC WATKINS ET ALS., INFANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued April 25, 1960
Decided May 23, 1960.
Mr. Robert V. Carton argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Durand, Ivins and Carton, attorneys).
Mr. Arnold Tulp argued the cause for the defendants-respondents.
Mr. Ralph E. Lum, Jr., argued the cause for the plaintiffs-respondents (Messrs. Lum, Fairlie and Foster, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Sullivan in the court below.