7 Buch. Larkin v. Wikoff. FRANCIS E. LARKIN et al., appellants, V. JAMES H. WIKOFF et al., defendant-respondents. [Argued July 8th and 11th, 1910. Decided November 14th, 1910.] On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Walker, whose opinion is reported in 75 N. J. Eq. (5 Buch.) 462. Mr. John V. B. Wicoff, for the defendant-respondents. Mr. Adrian S. Appelget, for the appellants. PER CURIAM. So much of the decree as is involved in this appeal will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Walker in the court below. For affirmance--THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, DILL, CONGDON-13. For reversal-None. West End Trust Co. v. Wetherill. 77 Eq. WEST END TRUST COMPANY, complainant, บ. ROBERT WETHERILL et al., defendants. [Submitted July 11th, 1910. Decided November 14th, 1910.] On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Leaming. Mr. George Reynolds, for the defendants. Messrs. Grey & Archer, for the complainant. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Leaming in the court below. For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, CONGDON-12. For reversal-None. 7 Buch. Howey v. Howey. HANNAH S. HOWEY, complainant and respondent, บ. WILBERT T. HOWEY, defendant and appellant. [Submitted July 11th, 1910. Decided November 14th, 1910.] On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Leaming. Messrs. French & Richards, for the appellant. Mr. Charles M. Atkinson, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Leaming in the court below. For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, DILL, CONGDON-13. For reversal-None. Speeler v. Heil. 77 Eq. JOHN F. SPEELER, complainant-respondent, V. KATE S. HEIL, defendant-appellant. [Submitted July 11th, 1910. Decided November 14th, 1910.] On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Walker. Mr. James J. McGoogan, for the respondent. Mr. W. Holt Apgar, for the appellant. PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Walker in the court below. For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, DILL, CONGDON-13. For reversal-None. 7 Buch. Wood v. Wood. JESSIE A. WOOD, appellant, V. MARY WOOD, respondent. [Argued June 23d, 1910. Decided July 5th, 1910.] On appeal from a decree of the prerogative court advised by Vice-Ordinary Walker. Mr. Alfred F. Stevens, for the appellant. Mr. Frank E. Bradner, for the respondent. PER CURIAM. Jessie A. Wood, the appellant, presented to the orphans court. of the county of Essex a petition praying that she be authorized to adopt her minor niece, Loretta Wood, pursuant to the provisions of "An act concerning minors, their adoption, custody and maintenance" (P. L. 1902 p. 259), as amended in 1905 (P. L. 1905 p. 272). The application was resisted by the mother of the child, the present respondent, and, after a full hearing, the prayer of the appellant's petition was granted and a decree of adoption made. From this decree the mother appealed to the prerogative court, and that court, after hearing, reversed the decree of the orphans court. The present appeal is from the decree of reversal. Our examination of the case satisfies us that the conclusion reached by the Essex orphans court was entirely justified by the proofs submitted and for the reasons set out in the following opinion of Mr. Justice Ten Eyck, filed in that court: "Loretta Wood, a child now twelve years old, is the niece of the petitioner, being the child of her brother Robert Wood. "Until 1902 all the parties lived in Summit. The petitioner and her sister then moved to Newark and have since lived there, |