Case Name: Benjamin R. Fox, respondent, v. Samuel R. Lazowick et al., appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-10-05
Citations: 95 N.J. Eq. 290
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin R. Fox, respondent, v. Samuel R. Lazowick et al., appellants.
Judges: For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenoharp, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppeniieimer,, Van Buskirk—9.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
Benjamin R. Fox, respondent, v. Samuel R. Lazowick et al., appellants.
[Decided October 5th, 1923.]
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll, who filed the following opinion:
“I will look into the legal proposition. My mind at the present time is quite clear that the agreement between these parties was that Mr. Lazowick was to deposit to the joint account of these two people the sum of $10,000, which was to be used in payment oE the first money that was to be paid on account of this agreement which had been entered into between Fox and Penrose; that that payment was the consideration for which Lazowick was to receive his interest in the concern. I think that the action of the parties afterwards, the first payment of $10,000 they received, which may be only a coincidence, was exactly the amount that they had paid down, was divided between the two of them, and that there was no contention on Mr. Lazowick’s part that the money was his personalty until the final settlement. It seems clear to me that this money, the $10,000, was only deposited to the joint account, $5,000 thereof the property of Lazowick and $5,000 the proyiertr of Mr. Fox, subject, however, to the use, it could be only placed to the one use. Now, as to the legal propositions, whether the bill is such that there is other matter besides reformation, I will take up later and announce just as speedily as possible.”
Messrs. Bourgeois & Coulomb, for the respondent.
Messrs. Cole <('• Cole, for the appellants.

Opinion:
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 Chief-Justice, Trenoharp, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppeniieimer,, Van Buskirk—9.
For reversal—Parker, Katzenbach, Ackerson—3.