Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

LAURENCE C. MURPHY and CHARLES L. GASKELL, JR., complainants-respondents, v. MARY E. MURPHY et al., defendants-appellants.

The record on appeal clearly establishes the intent of the testator that the printing business, which he devised to his son and two trusted employes, should pass under the will as a going concern, together with a bank account of the business and accounts receivable.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a decree construing a provision of the will of John Henry Murphy, deceased, whereby his printing business, the trade good will and fixtures were devised to his son and two trusted employes, one of whom was his brother. The learned vice-chancellor found that the devisees taking the printing business were entitled to a bank account used therein, together with the accounts receivable less the accounts payable. The record before this court clearly established the intent that the business as a going concern, with the bank account and receivables, should pass.

The decree appealed from is affirmed. For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, VAN BUSKIRK, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MURPHY v. MURPHY
(Oct 9, 1935)