Murphy v. Westfield Trust Co.
Deacon Murphy, John McK. Minton, Jr., Deacon Murphy, as Liquidating Partner of the Firm of Edwards, Murphy and Minton, and Mark Townsend, Complainants-Appellants, v. Westfield Trust Company and Louis Lawrence, as Substituted Administrators and Executors of the Estate of Marie D. Norton, Deceased, Et Al., Defendants-Respondents
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed for the reasons expressed by Vice-Chancellor Stein, reported in 129 N. J. Eq. 389, in so far as the same lead to the view that the contract sued upon did not comprehend the omission in Keller’s *601 will to make final distribution of the two-fourths part of the corpus remaining over after the life estates of Josephine De Eonge and Annie Townsend Ashmore. Supporting citations on the proposition that in the distribution of personalty under R. S. 3:26-6 and R. S. 3:5-6 et seq., the half blood and the whole blood are on an equal footing are:
In re Peake, 115 N. J. Eq. 233; affirmed, 116 N. J. Eq. 565; Smith v. McDonald, 71 N. J. Eq. 261; In re Tantum, 97 N. J. Eq. 271; In re Bell, 99 N. J. Eq. 835.
For a review of the earlier authorities see In re Zeek, 40 N. J. L. J. 297.
We reserve opinion on the defense of laches.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hei-ier, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Eafeerty, Hague, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.