LEBKUECHER v. CARR, 118 N.J. Eq. 303 (1935)

178 A. 745

PETER F. LEBKUECHER, complainant-appellant, v. CHARLES CARR et ux., et al., defendants-respondents.

Court of Errors and Appeals.Argued February 11, 1935.
Decided May 17, 1935.

Although the conclusions of the vice-chancellor contain one or more inaccurate statements of fact, they are of such character as not to affect the determination of the issues involved, and the court was fully justified in its findings of the essential facts of the case and correct in its application of the law to those facts.

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.

Messrs. Smith Slingerland, for the complainant-appellant.

Messrs. McCarter English, for the defendants-respondents Charles Carr, Dora Carr and Keansburg-Union Beach Realty Company.

Mr. Ezra W. Karkus, for the defendant-respondent Ernest Bade.

Messrs. Ackerson, Van Buskirk Philo, for the defendants-respondents Harry Seamen and Madeline Seamen.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Buchanan, dismissing the bill of complaint which sought to set aside certain conveyances of land and transfers of stock in a corporation, as fraudulent.

The vice-chancellor held that the proofs adduced by the appellants failed to sustain the cause of action set out in the bill of complaint.

Page 304

Appellant says that the vice-chancellor’s conclusions, which were submitted more than one year after the final hearing, contain several erroneous statements regarding the facts of the case and that the decision is predicated upon such misstatements and that the conclusions are against the weight of the evidence.

A careful consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that there may have been one or more inaccurate statements of the facts but if so, they were of such a character as not to affect the determination of the issues involved.

We are of the opinion that the court below was fully justified in its findings of the essential facts of the case and correct in its application of the law to the facts so found, and that the decree should be affirmed.

For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, JJ. 11.

For reversal — PARKER, HEHER, JJ. 2.

Page 305