Although the question of the household furniture in this case was not treated in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor or disposed of by the Chancery decree, the point was not incorporated in the petition of appeal as a ground for reversal. It is, therefore, not subject to examination by this court on appeal.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Egan, which is reported at 135 N.J. Eq. 23.
Appellant, in her brief, discusses an item concerning household furniture. This item appears not to have been treated in the opinion of the learned Vice-Chancellor nor disposed of by the decree entered in the court below. However, the point was not incorporated in the petition of appeal as a ground for reversal and, therefore, is not subject to examination by this court. New Jersey B.L. and I. Co. v. Lord, 66 N.J. Eq. 344, 350; Munger v. Munger, 130 N.J. Eq. 279, 286. For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, WELLS, RAFFERTY, THOMPSON, DILL, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.