
    Ben Schweitzer et al., appellants, v. Philip Schneider et al., respondents.
    [Submitted April 5th, 1916.
    Decided June 19th, 1916.]
    On appeal from a decree of tlie court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Lewis, whose opinion is reported mte p. 88.
    
    
      Messrs. Hudspeth & Rysdylc (Mr. Nathan Waxmcm, of the New York bar, on the brief), for the appellants.
    
      Messrs. McDermott & Hwright (Messi’s. Hillquit ,& Levmi, of the New York bar, on the brief), for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the vice-chancellor in his opinion which is not to be taken as deciding that the funds in controversy were not charged with a trust in the hands of the respondents, as a superficial reading might indicate, but rather as defining the class of persons for whose benefit such trust exists, while denying that it exists for the .benefit of a certain other class.

No. 26—

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Swayee, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Terhune, Heppenpieimee, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.

For reversal — Fone.

No. 27—

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisce, Black, White, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner — 15.

For reversal — None.  