Case Name: Helen Manz, complainant-respondent, v. Tenafly Trust Company, defendant-respondent; George Manz, executor, &c., defendant-appellant
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1936-10-02
Citations: 121 N.J. Eq. 112
Docket Number: 
Parties: Helen Manz, complainant-respondent, v. Tenafly Trust Company, defendant-respondent; George Manz, executor, &c., defendant-appellant.
Judges: For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heiier, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles-Kbil, Raeeerty, JJ. 11.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 112–112

Head Matter:
Helen Manz, complainant-respondent, v. Tenafly Trust Company, defendant-respondent; George Manz, executor, &c., defendant-appellant.
[Argued May term, 1936.
Decided October 2d, 1936.]
Mr. Joseph F. Kearney and Mr. Vvncent M. Rotolo, for the defendant-appellant.
Messrs. Gaudielle & Shuart, Mr. Edward Thomas Moore, Mr. Joseph H. Gaudielle and Mr. James A. Major, for the complainant-respondent.
Messrs. Seufert & Elmore, for Tenafly Trust Company.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appeal is from a decree in the court of chancery holding that John Manz in his lifetime had made to the complainant a valid gift of the moneys on deposit to his credit in the defendant trust company. The proofs examined clearly support the findings of the court.
The decree is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heiier, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Woles-Kbil, Raeeerty, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.