From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bevans v. Bevans

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Feb 7, 1905
69 N.J. Eq. 1 (Ch. Div. 1905)

Opinion

02-07-1905

BEVANS et al. v. BEVANS et al.

Martin Rosenkrans, for complainants. Addison P. Rosenkrans, for defendants.


Bill for the construction of a will by Victor E. Bevans and others against Edwin Bevans and others. Heard on pleadings and proof.

Martin Rosenkrans, for complainants.

Addison P. Rosenkrans, for defendants.

MAGIE, Ch. This matter has been submitted upon the pleadings and proofs, without any briefs from counsel. The purpose of the bill is to obtain a construction of a will with respect to the title to real estate. No equitable relief of any sort is sought, and the only decree which could be made upon the pleadings would be one merely expressing my opinion upon the meaning of the will in question. I have had occasion to examine the jurisdiction of this court in construing wills, and it was declared by me that it was capable of being exercised with respect to title to real estate only when some equitable relief is sought in respect to such real estate. Hoagland v. Cooper, 65 N. J. Eq. 407, 56 Atl. 705. Upon this bill there is therefore no jurisdiction to construe the will, and it is settled that the court will not express opinions in regard to construction for the mere information of parties, disconnected from some equitable relief sought.

This would lead to a dismissal of the bill, but, as counsel have submitted the latter without briefs, I will give them an opportunity to be heard, if they desire, before such a decree is entered.


Summaries of

Bevans v. Bevans

COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
Feb 7, 1905
69 N.J. Eq. 1 (Ch. Div. 1905)
Case details for

Bevans v. Bevans

Case Details

Full title:BEVANS et al. v. BEVANS et al.

Court:COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Feb 7, 1905

Citations

69 N.J. Eq. 1 (Ch. Div. 1905)
59 A. 896

Citing Cases

Matlock v. Matlock

This court has no jurisdiction to entertain a bill for directions about the distribution until the time for…

Matlock v. Matlock

This court has no jurisdiction to entertain a bill for directions about the distribution until the time for…