Fid. Union Trust Co. v. At Al., 213.
| Citation | 44 A.2d 25 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 213.,213. |
| Parties | FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. v. SAYRE at al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Action by Fidelity Union Trust Company, etc., as substituted trustee, etc., under the last will of Marcus Sayre, decreased, against Mary Estelle Sayre and others for construction of decedent's will and for instructions. Defendant Dudley O. Sayre filed a counterclaim. From that portion of decree, 41 A.2d 388, of the Court of Chancery decreeing it to be the advantage of decedent's estate that certain realty be sold and complainant convery such realty, defendant Dudley O. Sayre appeals. Natalie B. Dalton and others were substituted in place of the original appellant.
Affirmed.
Hood, Lafferty & Emerson, of Newark (Wallace R. Chandler, Jr., of Newark, of counsel), for complainant-respondent.
Kanter & Kanter, of Newark (Elias A. Kanter, of Newark, of counsel), for appellants.
This is an appeal from that portion of a decree of the Court of Chancery decreeing it to be to the advantage of the estate of Marcus Sayre that premises at 561 Broad Street, Newark, be sold to Charles Cameron, Jr., for the sum of $16,262, and that complainant convey same.
The complainant, as substituted trustee, filed its bill praying for a construction of the will of Marcus Sayre as to whether or not it had the power of sale of the aforesaid property, and, if so, that it be advised whether or not it should sell in accordance with the terms of the contract made with Cameron. Further, that if it should be determined no power of sale existed, whether the premises should be sold under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court where an emergency has arisen not anticipated by the testator, or subject to an order of the court made pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 3:35-1, N.J.S.A.
In its bill complainant asserted that tax arrearages had accumulated, that there were no funds to pay such, due at least in part to the depression beginning in 1929, that the tax liens had been sold to Cameron, that the value of the property was depreciating, that it could not carry itself, that the sale would net the estate $5,000 and that such sale was for its best interests.
The answer filed by Dudley O. Sayre, among other things, denied that the depression was the cause of insufficient income to pay taxes and the fact that there was insufficient funds to pay same. In that pleading he counterclaimed against complainant charging it with various acts of commission and omission in the administration of the trust estate to its detriment. Some of his charges were failure to sell the property at an earlier time, failure to make prompt payment of taxes, failure to collect rent arrearages from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitilenes v. Snead
...Prout v. Bernards Land & Sand Co., 77 N.J.L. 719, 721, 73 A. 486, 25 L.R.A., N.S., 683 (E. & A.1909); Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Sayre, 137 N.J.Eq. 179, 181, 44 A.2d 25 (E. & A.1945). And where failure to permit cross-examination seriously affects the substantial rights of a party to the s......
-
Brogan v. Passaic Daily News, A--153
...a matter of right. Babirecki v. Virgil, 97 N.J.Eq. 315, 321, 127 A. 594, 39 A.L.R. 171 (E. & A.1925); Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Sayre, 137 N.J.Eq. 179, 181, 44 A.2d 25 (E. & A.1945). A construction of the statute permitting the deprivation of a party's right of cross-examination on vital ......
-
Kiernan v. Mauer
...which are relevant to the issues of the action, or which tend to affect the credibility of the witness. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Sayre, 137 N.J.Eq. 179, 44 A.2d 25 (E. & A. 1945); Rynar v. Lincoln Transit Co., 129 N.J.L. 525, 30 A.2d 406 (E. & A. 1943); Bingham v. Schindel, 92 N.J.L. 502......
-
Dominik v. Dominik
...683 (E. & A.1909); Babirecki v. Virgil, 97 N.J.Eq. 315, 127 A. 594, 39 A.L.R. 171 (E. & A.1925); Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Sayre, 137 N.J.Eq. 179, 44 A.2d 25 (E. & A.1945). We think the error committed was harmless. Assuming defendant's testimony to be in accord with that of the plaintiff......