Case Name: Mary E. Hoehl, complainant-appellant, v. Joseph W. Hibbert, defendant-respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1933-04-28
Citations: 113 N.J. Eq. 114
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary E. Hoehl, complainant-appellant, v. Joseph W. Hibbert, defendant-respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Mary E. Hoehl, complainant-appellant, v. Joseph W. Hibbert, defendant-respondent.
[Submitted February 17th, 1933.
Decided April 28th, 1933.]
Mr. W. Holt Apgar, for the appellant.
Mr. Louis Budner, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Cubiam.
The case was purely a fact case, and while the testimony was somewhat voluminous and contradictory, the only point really at issue was that decided by the vice-chancellor, viz., whether the deed to Joseph had been made without the consent of the other children and in fraud of their rights. The agreement made by the mother was in writing and provided that she would not convey without the written consent of the several children. The determinative question of fact was whether there had been such written consent. The vice-chancellor found that there had been and that it had been lost or purloined in some way. We have examined the evidence and concur fully in the result reached by the vice-chancellor.
The decree under review will therefore he affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Teenchaed, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Yah Buskiek, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. ' 14.
For reversal — None.