1 Robbins. Porch v. Agnew Co. ELSIE M. FOLWELL, respondent, V. THOMAS G. FOLWELL, appellant. [Argued March 16th, 1904. Decided September 30th, 1904.] On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Reed, whose opinion is reported in 65 N. J. Eq. (20 Dick.) 526. Mr. John F. Harned, for the appellant. Mr. Norman Grey, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Reed. For affirmance-DIXON, GARRISON, FORT, PITNEY, SWAYZE, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY-10. For reversal-None. WESLEY B. PORCH V. THE AGNEW COMPANY. [Argued March 17th, 1904. Decided March 21st, 1904.] On appeal of Joseph Thompson, purchaser at receiver's sale. Lederer v. Yule. 67 Eq. Mr. Clarence L. Cole, for the appellant. Mr. David J. Pancoast, for the respondent.. PER CURIAM. The order appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Grey, rendered in the court of chancery, reported in 66 N. J. Eq. (21 Dick.) 232. For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, DIXON, GARRISON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, SWAYZE, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GREEN-10. For reversal-None. SAMUEL L. LEDERER V. JOHN YULE, SR., et al. [Argued June 28th, 1904. Decided December 9th, 1904.] On appeal of Nellie McCrea, from a decree advised by ViceChancellor Pitney. Mr. Jacob W. De Yoe and Mr. Gustav A. Hunziker and Mr. Miller (of the Pennsylvania bar), for the appellant. Mr. William J. Briody and Mr. William B. Gourley, for the respondents. The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Pitney, reported ante p. 65. For affirmance-FORT, PITNEY, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY—6. For reversal-DIXON, GARRISON, Bogert-3. CHRISTIAN BUTTLAR, respondent, บ. MINA BUTTLAR, appellant. [Argued June 28th, 1904. Decided December 9th, 1904.] On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported ante p. 136. Mr. John I. Weller, for the appellant. Mr. Marshall Van Winkle, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Pitney in the court below. For affirmance-DIXON, GARRISON, FORT, PITNEY, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY-9. For reversal-None. Anderson v. Anderson Food Co. 67 Eq. In re COLLATERAL INHERITANCE TAX AGAINST THE VINELAND HISTORICAL AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY. [Argued June 29th, 1904. Decided April 28th, 1905.] On appeal from a decree made by the ordinary, whose opinion is reported in 66 N. J. Eq. (21 Dick.) 291.` Mr. Charles K. Landis, for the appellant. Mr. J. Hampton Fithian, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed. For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, FORT, PITNEY, GREEN, GRAY-5. For reversal-DIXON, GARRISON, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM-5. ABRAHAM ANDERSON, appellant, บ. ANDERSON FOOD COMPANY, respondent. [Submitted July 11th, 1904. Decided December 9th, 1904.] On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Grey, whose opinion is reported in 66 N. J. Eq. (21 Dick.) 209. 1 Robbins. DeGray v. Mon. Beach Club House Co. Mr. Schuyler C. Woodhull, Mr. Samuel W. Beldon and Mr. David J. Pancoast, for the appellant. Mr. John F. Harned and Mr. Joseph H. Gaskill, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery. For affirmance-DIXON, GARRISON, FORT, GARRETSON, PITNEY, SWAYZE, REED, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY-13. For reversal-Nonc. RICHARD DEGRAY,* appellant, V. MONMOUTH BEACH CLUB HOUSE COMPANY et al., respondents. [Decided February 26th, 1894.] On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Green, whose opinion is reported in 50 N. J. Eq. (5 Dick.) 329. Messrs. Cortlandt & R. Wayne Parker, for the appellant. Mr. Edward Q. Keasbey and Mr. Anthony Q. Keasbey, for the respondents. * This case was omitted from its proper place.-REP. |