From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swetland v. Swetland

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 2, 1931
107 N.J. Eq. 504 (N.J. 1931)

Opinion

Argued May 27th, 1930.

Decided February 2d 1931.

On appeal from the court of chancery.

Mr. Merritt Lane, for Maurice J. Swetland, trustee.

Messrs. Lindabury, Depue Faulks ( Mr. J. Edward Ashmead, on the brief), for the respondents.


These appeals by Maurice J. Swetland, as trustee, are in the one instance from two orders of the court of chancery, made on an opinion of Vice-Chancellor Berry, reported in 105 N.J. Eq. 608, and in the other instance from two orders of the prerogative court made on the opinion of the same vice-chancellor, sitting as vice-ordinary, reported in 105 N.J. Eq. 603. The appeals are related and were argued together. We affirm throughout for the reasons stated in the opinions below; except that in reaching our conclusions we do not find it necessary to determine the character or the effect of the special appearances entered below in behalf of the appellant, and we therefore express no opinion thereon.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Swetland v. Swetland

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 2, 1931
107 N.J. Eq. 504 (N.J. 1931)
Case details for

Swetland v. Swetland

Case Details

Full title:GRACE E. SWETLAND et al., complainants-respondents, v. MAURICE J. SWETLAND…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Feb 2, 1931

Citations

107 N.J. Eq. 504 (N.J. 1931)
153 A. 907

Citing Cases

Jurewicz v. Locals 1297, c., of America

A special appearance by leave of the court is, of course, essential if the service is sought to be attacked…

In re McDougal

It has nothing to do with the distribution of the proceeds of such sale among the legatees of the decedent.…