Legal Opinion

Phair v. Melosh

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided April 25, 1939PublishedCited by 4 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. The testator left his entire estate to his wife Elizabeth Ecklin and she died a few months later leaving a will probated before said surrogate April 20th, 1897, under which said William F. Melosh qualified as executor and by which her estate passed to her grandchildren, Elizabeth Melosh, now Phair (the complainant), and Rudolph C. Melosh, children of William F. Melosh. November 7th, 1901, Melosh, as executor of Elizabeth…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Soper v. CiscoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  2. Hall v. OttersonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1894
  3. Otterson v. HallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
  4. Lutjen v. LutjenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
  5. McCartin v. TraphagenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1887

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pagano v. United Jersey BankSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
  2. Wendt v. Bergen Savings BankNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
  3. McCall v. BrownDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1975
  4. Phair v. MeloshSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API