Smith v. Meyer

Decided February 5, 1931

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1939

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1931-02-05

¶1The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan.

¶2For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, DONGES, VAN BUSKIRK, HETFIELD, WELLS, JJ. 11.

¶3For reversal — None.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Posture: On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan, who filed the following memorandum: Complainants' bill is in the nature of a bill for specific performance of a contract which they allege to have been made with them by Julia Babcock, now deceased, by the terms of which contract they claim Mrs. Babcock agreed, for valid consideration, to leave to them by her will, at her death, one-half of her estate. The issue is one of fact — as to whether the alleged contract was made or not. Much testimony was taken, which it would serve no useful purpose to recite. My conclusion at the close of the hearing, after hearing the testimony and observing the witnesses, was that complainants had by no means sustained the burden of proof of establishing the making of the contract; which led, of course, to decree of dismissal.