Flandrau v. Albanesius.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the following reasons, stated by Vice-Chancellor Stevens, at the close of the hearing, on directing a dismissal of the bill of complaint:

There is no evidence whatever that Dr. Albanesius has abrogated the contract in any way. The evidence shows very plainly that it was the desire of Dr. Albanesius to fulfill the contract. There seems to have been some difficulty with respect to ascertaining what was due the precise amount that was due. That is the evidence, and it also appears that within a few days afterwards Mrs. Peters moved to New York City, and Mr. Albanesius did not know where to go in order to make a tender of the money. Finally, he discovered her new place of residence, and tendered the money. The difficulty lay in the fact of an unsettled account which had not been settled before. It seems to me that if ever there was a case in which diligence was shown-an earnest desire on the part of a purchaser to live up to his contract-I cannot conceive of any case in which greater diligence has ever been exhibited. It does not appear that Mrs. Peters made any tender of the deed, and because of this failure I think it is perfectly plain that Dr. Albanesius is entitled to the surplus. Time is not of the essence of this agreement. I therefore dismiss the bill.

For affirmance- THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, KRUEGER, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM -15.

For reversal-None.

51

Hancock v. Elmer.

EDWARD G. DUFFY, complainant and appellant,

υ.

ALFRED HARGAN et al., defendants and respondents.

[Filed June 23d, 1902.]

Mr. James R. Nugent, for the appellant.

Messrs. Sommer & Adams, for the respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Vice-Chancellor Stevens in the opinion delivered in the court below. See 17 Dick. Ch. Rep. 588.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, KRUEGER, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM -15.

For reversal-None.

BENJAMIN HANCOCK, complainant and respondent,

υ.

ELLISON ELMER, defendant and appellant.

[Filed June 23d, 1902.]

Mr. David J. Pancoast, for the appellant.

Mr. Walter H. Bacon, for the respondent.

Hanneman v. Richter.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Grey delivered in the court below. See 16 Dick. Ch. Rep. 558.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, GARRETSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, KRUEGER, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES-10.

For reversal-DIXON, COLLINS, HENDRICKSON, VROOм-4.

LOUIS HANNEMAN et al., complainants and respondents,

υ.

MATILDA RICHTER et al., defendants and appellants.

[Filed June 23d, 1902.]

Mr. Charles J. Roe, for the appellants.

Mr. Charles H. Hartshorne, for the respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the chancellor in the opinion delivered in the court below. See 17 Dick. Ch. Rep. 365.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, KRUEGER, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM-14.

For reversal-None.

Budd v. Camden Horse R. R. Co.

FREDERICK HEMSLEY, complainant and appellant,

v.

THE MARLBOROUGH HOTEL COMPANY, defendant and

respondent.

[Filed June 23d, 1902.]

Mr. Samuel H. Grey, for the appellant.

Mr. Clarence L. Cole, for the respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Vice-Chancellor Reed filed in the court below. See 17 Dick. Ch. Rep. 164.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM-14.

For reversal-None.

HIRAM E. BUDD et al., complainants and appellants,

υ.

THE CAMDEN HORSE RAILROAD COMPANY et al., defendants

and respondents.

[Filed June 23d, 1902.]

Mr. Francis D. Weaver, for the appellants.

Mr. Edward Ambler Armstrong, for the respondents.

Stevenson v. Morgan.

PER CURIAM.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Vice-Chancellor Grey in the opinion filed in the court below. See 16 Dick. Ch. Rep. 543.

For affirmance-THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM-14.

The order appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Vice-Chancellor Stevenson in the opinion delivered by him in the court below. See 18 Dick. Ch. Rep. 707.

For affirmance- THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, VAN SYCKEL, DIXON, GARRISON, COLLINS, FORT, GARRETSON, HENDRICKSON, PITNEY, BOGERT, ADAMS, VREDENBURGH, VOORHEES, VROOM-14.

For reversal-None.