From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connolly v. Guardian Casualty, c., N.Y

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 5, 1934
169 A. 690 (N.J. 1934)

Opinion

Submitted October 28th, 1933.

Decided January 5th, 1934.

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Fallon, whose opinion is reported under the title of Connolly v. Connolly, 112 N.J. Eq. 434.

Messrs. Collins Corbin ( Edward A. Markley, of counsel), for the appellant.

Mr. Mario Turtur ( Fred E. Shepard, of counsel), for the respondent.


We affirm the opinion below for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Fallon in his opinion. We have nothing to add excepting this: We have examined the contention of the appellant that "the counsel fee allowed to counsel for the respondent is excessive." We think it is not. It was $250, and in the circumstances disclosed by the record was quite justified. The respondent is entitled to costs in this court.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Connolly v. Guardian Casualty, c., N.Y

Court of Errors and Appeals
Jan 5, 1934
169 A. 690 (N.J. 1934)
Case details for

Connolly v. Guardian Casualty, c., N.Y

Case Details

Full title:MARY CONNOLLY, petitioner-respondent, v. GUARDIAN CASUALTY INSURANCE…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Jan 5, 1934

Citations

169 A. 690 (N.J. 1934)
169 A. 690

Citing Cases

Coursen v. Coursen

See Schreiber v. Schreiber, supra. Further, the propriety of awarding the plaintiff relief on arrearages out…

Beekwilder v. Beekwilder

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 85 N.J. Eq. 303 ( Ch. 1915), affirmed (but without passing on this point) 86 N.J. Eq.…