Legal Opinion
Melosh v. Melosh
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided April 11, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The will of Charles Ecklin was admitted to probate by the surrogate of Hudson county in or about September, 1896, and William F. Melosh qualified as executor thereunder. By the will the testator left his entire estate to his wife Elizabeth Ecklin and she died a few months later leaving a will admitted to probate by said surrogate April 20th, 1897, under which said William F. Melosh qualified as executor and by which her estate passed to her grandchildren Rudolph C. Melosh (the complainant) and Elizabeth Melosh (now Phair) children of said William F. Melosh. No inventory or account of the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Berger v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
- Hall v. OttersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1894
- Otterson v. HallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
- Giehrach v. RuppSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Backes v. CraneNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Estate of LashSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- In Re EbertNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1945
- Enfield v. FWL, INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991
- In Re Estate of LashNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
- Van Buren v. Plainfield Trust Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.