BUCHANAN, Adv. Master
Bill by Mary Etta Cox Parker against Mable Cox. Bill dismissed.
Berry & Riggins, for complainant.
BUCHANAN, Adv. Master. On bill taken pro con. and order for proofs.
The complainant claims specific performance of a contract made between herself and the defendant, whereby she, the defendant (being then an infant), agreed within six months after attaining her majority (which occurred upward of three years ago) to execute to the complainant an assignment of all the defendant's right, title, and interest in the estate of her deceased grandfather, William Cox, and also to execute a release to the complainant as executrix, and to Ralph B. Gowdy as executor of said Cox, or to return to the complainant the sum of $4,100 paid by the complainant to the defendant, and be compelled to accept the defendant's distributive share under said will. Not to mention objections by reason of nonjoinder, and noncompliance with the statute of frauds, the suit is not maintainable for want of equity, and because the complainant has an adequate remedy at law. See Van Horn v. Demarest (October term Chancery, 1909, opinion by Vice Chancellor Stevenson) affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals March term, 1910, 77 Atl. 354; Clark v. Van Cleef, 75 N. J. Eq. 152, 71 Atl. 260 (Walker, V. C, February term, 1909); Volker v. Fisk, 75 N. J. Eq. 500, 72 Atl. 1011 (Walker, V. C, February term, 1909).
The bill should therefore be dismissed.