History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wurst v. Branin
102 N.J. Eq. 326
| N.J. | 1928
|
Check Treatment

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 CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None. *Page 327

Case Details

Case Name: Wurst v. Branin
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Feb 6, 1928
Citation: 102 N.J. Eq. 326
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.