From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hubert

Court of Errors and Appeals
May 17, 1926
99 N.J. Eq. 886 (N.J. 1926)

Opinion

Decided May 17th, 1926.

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Backes, whose opinion is reported in 98 N.J. Eq. 35.

Mr. Samuel Craig Cowart, for the appellant.

Mr. Harrison P. Lindabury, for the respondent.


The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Backes.

For affirmance — PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

In re Hubert

Court of Errors and Appeals
May 17, 1926
99 N.J. Eq. 886 (N.J. 1926)
Case details for

In re Hubert

Case Details

Full title:In the matter of the application of JOSEPHINE S. HUBERT et al., from an…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: May 17, 1926

Citations

99 N.J. Eq. 886 (N.J. 1926)

Citing Cases

The Pennsylvania Co. for Banking, Etc. v. Clarkson

The causes of action are not the same and the question raised and litigated in the present suit was not then…

Lundie v. Walker

One to whom a life interest is given by will may nevertheless be entitled to a share in the remainder,…