Day v. Faulks
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, whose opinion is reported'in 79 N. J. Eq. (9 Buck.) 66.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
We agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the vice-chancellor, and would add nothing but for a suggestion in his opinion as to the state of the authorities and the fact that our attention has been .directed to a remark of the master in Ashhurst v. Potter. 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 625, 635.
The case as it comes to this court does not present the general question whether a stock dividend, strictly so called, upon stock held for a trust fund, is to be apportioned between the tenant for life and the remainderman. The vice-chancellor felt con*174s…
2Cited by7 opinions
- In Re Trust Under Will of ArensSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
- Beattie v. GedneyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- In Re Wehrhane's EstateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Koehler v. KoehlerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co. v. BrunsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.