3 Robbins.

Monmouth County Electric Co. v. McKenna.

MONMOUTH COUNTY ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondent,

ข.

THOMAS P. MCKENNA, appellant.

[Argued June 27th, 1905. Decided March 5th, 1906.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in 68 N. J. Eq. 160.

Messrs. Collins & Corbin, for the appellant.

Messrs. Grey, McDermott & Enright, for the respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the court of chancery by Vice-Chancellor Pitney.

For affirmance-DIXON, FORT, GARRETSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY-S.

For reversal-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, SWAYZE-2.

Ayres v. Ayres.

LYDIA A. AYRES, respondent,

V.

69 Eq.

JOHN H. AYRES, appellant.

[Argued June 27th, 1905. Decided March 5th, 1906.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bergen, whose opinion is reported ante p. 343.

Mr. Hervey C. Scudder and Mr. Edwin Robert Walker, for the appellant.

Mr. Linton Satterthwait, for the respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in the court of chancery by Vice-Chancellor Bergen.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, DIXON, GARRISON, FORT, GARRETSON, PITNEY, SWAYZE, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GREEN, GRAY-12.

For reversal-None.

3 Robbins.

United N. J. R. R. and Canal Co. v. Lewis.

UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD AND CANAL COMPANY et al.,

appellants,

v.

FRANCIS LEWis et al., respondents.

[Argued June 27th, 28th, 1905. Decided June 18th, 1906.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bergen, whose opinion is reported in 68 N. J. Eq. 437.

Mr. Alan H. Strong, for the appellants.

Mr. George T. Parrot, for the respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The decree in this case will be affirmed for the reasons contained in the opinion delivered in the court of chancery by ViceChancellor Bergen.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, FORT, PITNEY, SWAYZE, REED, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY -10.

For reversal-None.

United N. J. R. R. and Canal Co. v. McCully.

69 Eq.

UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD AND CANAL COMPANY et al.,

appellants,

V.

WILLIAM MCCULLY et al., respondents.

[Argued June 27th, 28th, 1905. Decided June 18th, 1906.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Bergen, whose opinion is reported in 68 N. J. Eq. 442.

Mr. Alan II. Strong, for the appellants.

Mr. George T. Parrot, for the respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The decree in this case is affirmed for the reasons contained in the opinion delivered in the court of chancery by Vice-Chancellor Bergen.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, FORT, PITNEY, SWAYZE, REED, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY -10.

For reversal-None.

INDEX.

A.

PAGE.

ACCOUNTING-1. Exceptions to a final account of the receiver of
an insolvent corporation will not be considered if they relate to
matters which could have been urged against making the decree
of insolvency, or upon an order to show cause why a previous
account of the receiver should not be set aside, obtained by the
exceptant. STRAUSS v. CASEY MACHINE AND SUPPLY COMPANY, 19

2.

The account now presented, being unsupported by sufficient
vouchers, will be referred to a master, by an order excluding
from consideration every matter adjudicated upon in the deci-
sion of the order to show cause and the confirmation of the
report on the previous accounts of the receiver. Id.....
See ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; DEMURRER, 3-5; JURISDICTION,
3; PARTITION, 1, 2; WILLS, 18.

..........

AFFIDAVITS-See CONTEMPT, 1; TRADE MARKS AND TRADE
NAMES, 1.

ANSWER-Exceptions for insufficiency will lie to the answer of a
corporation. FLITCROFT v. ALLENHURST CLUB....

19

13

APPEAL-1. An order of an orphans court directing a writ of
attachment to issue for an alleged contempt, made after hearing
on an order to show cause, is not appealable. IN RE DOLAND... 466
2. Where an order directed a purchaser of lands at an ad-
ministrator's sale to complete the purchase, and also directed
the issue of an attachment for contempt on failure to complete
the purchase within a given time, the first portion of the order,
being appealable, entitled the purchaser to appeal, irrespective
of the appealability of the second portion of the order. PODESTA
r. MOODY

468

3. With the consent of the appellant, the orphans court may
dismiss an appeal from the decree of the surrogate admitting a
will to probate, without notice to the persons who may have
been cited to appear, and without hearing the subject-matter of
the appeal. IN RE HYNES
485

4.

An appeal from the orphans court to the prerogative court
being allowed by statute only to a "person aggrieved" (P. L.