Baldwin v. . Rice

New York Court of Appeals

Baldwin v. . Rice

76 N.E. 1088, 184 N.Y. 523, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1401

DecidedFebruary 6, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 76 N.E. 1088 (Baldwin v. . Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baldwin v. . Rice, 76 N.E. 1088, 184 N.Y. 523, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1401 (N.Y. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In our disposition of the appeal in this case we did not misconceive the question involved, as is now contended by the learned counsel for the appellants with rather more heat than we think warranted.

We held, with the courts below, that the letters of administration were clearly ancillary in character, and that so considered they were void, as, in securing their issue, the appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. We add to the opinion already published (183 N. Y. 55) that the order directing the issue of letters contained provisions that made the letters limited and ancillary on their face. The motion for re-argument should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In our disposition of the appeal in this case we did not misconceive the question involved, as is now contended by the learned counsel for the appellants with rather more heat than we think warranted.

We held, with the courts below, that the letters of administration were clearly ancillary in character, and that so considered they were void, as, in securing their issue, the appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. We add to the opinion already published (183 N. Y. 55) that the order directing the issue of letters contained provisions that made the letters limited and ancillary on their face. The motion for re-argument should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E. 1088, 184 N.Y. 523, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-rice-ny-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack