Gates v. Plainfield Trust Co.
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1950)
- The Pennsylvania Company, C. v. Gillmore (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1948)
- Dickerson v. Camden Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1947)
- In re Ebert (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1945)
- Rusch v. Melosh (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1943)
- In re Buckelew (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1940)
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Noll (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1939)
- In re Griggs (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1939)
- In re the Estate of Romnes (N.J. 1979)
- Vondermuhll v. Montclair Trust Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
- Matter of Estate of Carter (N.J. 1951)
- Liberty Title & Trust Co. v. Plews (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1950)
- Phair v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation (District Court, D. New Jersey 1947)
- Britten v. United States (District Court, D. New Jersey 1945)
- Baird v. Peoples Bank Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1943)
- Commonwealth-Merchants Trust Co. v. Seglie (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1940)
- In re the intermediate account of Paterson National Bank (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1939)
- Gates v. Plainfield Trust Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1938)
- Ross v. Savings Investment & Trust Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1938)
- Cox v. Camden Safe Deposit Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1938)
- Tannenbaum v. Seacoast Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1938)
- In re Shaw (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1937)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
These appeals arise out of one case, tried together in the court below and argued together in this court. The appeal in No. 224 by the Trust Company is against so much of the decree as surcharges the appellant as executor of the estate of Leroy H. Gates for wrongful investments of the funds of the estate. The appeal of Eoy W. Gates et al. (No. 225), is from so much of the decree as dismisses their counter-claim.
Our examination of the record convinces us that the decree *367 was proper in both respects. The surcharge as against the trust company is based upon well settled principles controlling the investment of trust funds, and tested by those principles no other course was open in the disposition of the case.
The prayer as sought by the defendants in their counterclaim we think was properly denied.
Without giving assent to all that is said in the opinion of the learned vice-chancellor, we agree with the results reached and the decree is therefore affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trefchard, Parker, Lloyd, Bodife, Heher, Perskie, JJ. 7.
For reversal — Dofges, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 5.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.