History
  • No items yet
midpage
Heinisch v. Pennington
75 N.J. Eq. 606
N.J.
1909
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Out examination of this case leads us to the conclusion that the decree appealed from should be affirmed, and for the reasons given in the opinion of Arice-Chancellor Emery delivered in the court below, except that we have not found it necessary to consider the following question discussed in the opinion, viz., whether a promise made by a legatee to a testator that he will “provide well” for another legatee, and which promise induces the testator to refrain from altering his will for the purpose of further providing for that other legatee, is enforceable after the death of the testator by the legatee for whose benefit it was made. We find it unnecessary for the reason that the proofs will not, in our opinion, justify the conclusion that any such promise was made by the defendant’s testator to his father.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chancellor, Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Voor-HEES, MiNTLRN, BoGERT, ArREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DlLL —15. For reversal—None.

Case Details

Case Name: Heinisch v. Pennington
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Jun 14, 1909
Citation: 75 N.J. Eq. 606
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.