Case Name: David Hirschmann, complainant-appellee, v. Rose Hirschmann and Jonas Hirschmann, defendants, and Lillian Hirschmann, defendant-appellant
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1945-02-02
Citations: 136 N.J. Eq. 230
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Hirschmann, complainant-appellee, v. Rose Hirschmann and Jonas Hirschmann, defendants, and Lillian Hirschmann, defendant-appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
David Hirschmann, complainant-appellee, v. Rose Hirschmann and Jonas Hirschmann, defendants, and Lillian Hirschmann, defendant-appellant.
[Argued October 23d, 1944.
Decided February 2d, 1945.]
Mr. Hilion M. TJnger, for the appellant.
Mr. A. Harry Moore, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Egan, which is reported at 135 N. J. Eq. 23.
Appellant, in. her brief, discusses an item concerning household furniture. This item appears not to have been treated in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor nor disposed of by the decree entered in the court below. However, the point was not incorporated in the petition of appeal as a ground for reversal and, therefore, is not subject to examination by this court. New Jersey B. L. and I. Co. v. Lord, 66 N. J. Eq. 344, 350; Munger v. Munger, 130 N. J. Eq. 279, 286.
For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Peeskie, Poetee, Colie, Wells, Raeeekty, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.