Ballantyne v. Steenwerth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballantyne v. Steenwerth

80 N.Y.S. 37, 79 A.D. 632

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 30, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 N.Y.S. 37 (Ballantyne v. Steenwerth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballantyne v. Steenwerth, 80 N.Y.S. 37, 79 A.D. 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The county court has awarded to the plaintiff full costs against the defendant executor under section [38]*381836 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order cannot be sustained, on the ground that defendant did not seasonably file the consent provided for in section 1822 and in the section cited, because the suit was begun only eight days after the claim was rejected by the executor, whereas the executor has five months and twenty days after the rejection to file the necessary consent. Hart v. Hart, 45 App. Div. 280, 61 N. Y. Supp. 131. It would seem, therefore, that the or- ■ der must have been based upon the alternative proposition that the payment of the claim was unreasonably resisted or neglected, and we cannot say that the learned county judge erred in so holding. The motion was based not alone upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, but upon all the proceedings in the action. These proceedings are not before us, but were presumably in the mind of the learned trial judge at the time he entertained and decided the motion. The circumstances of the trial may well have shown that the suit was unreasonably defended, and, as we cannot indulge in any presumption to the contrary, the order should be affirmed. All concur.

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

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

The county court has awarded to the plaintiff full costs against the defendant executor under section [38]*381836 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order cannot be sustained, on the ground that defendant did not seasonably file the consent provided for in section 1822 and in the section cited, because the suit was begun only eight days after the claim was rejected by the executor, whereas the executor has five months and twenty days after the rejection to file the necessary consent. Hart v. Hart, 45 App. Div. 280, 61 N. Y. Supp. 131. It would seem, therefore, that the or- ■ der must have been based upon the alternative proposition that the payment of the claim was unreasonably resisted or neglected, and we cannot say that the learned county judge erred in so holding. The motion was based not alone upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, but upon all the proceedings in the action. These proceedings are not before us, but were presumably in the mind of the learned trial judge at the time he entertained and decided the motion. The circumstances of the trial may well have shown that the suit was unreasonably defended, and, as we cannot indulge in any presumption to the contrary, the order should be affirmed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.Y.S. 37, 79 A.D. 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballantyne-v-steenwerth-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack