Case Name: Lewis Wurst et al., complainants-respondents, v. Anna Mary Branin et vir., defendants-appellants
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1928-02-06
Citations: 102 N.J. Eq. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lewis Wurst et al., complainants-respondents, v. Anna Mary Branin et vir., defendants-appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 326–326

Head Matter:
Lewis Wurst et al., complainants-respondents, v. Anna Mary Branin et vir., defendants-appellants.
[Submitted October 29th, 1927.
Decided February 6th, 1928.]
Mr. George D. Bothermel, for the appellants.
Mr. Robert J. Tait Paul, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
Our examination of the decree below, and of the evidence upon which it is based, results in the conclusion that the decree is right.
The evidence required the application of the rule as to independent advice as laid down in Slack v. Rees, 66 N. J. Eq. 447, and Post v. Hagan, 71 N. J. Eq. 234. The vice-chancellor correctly applied the rule. The decree below will be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Tbekchaed, Paekee, Mintuen, Kalisoh, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Vak Buskiek, McGlenktoh, Kays, Heteibld, Deak, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.