Claim of Casey v. Estate of Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Casey v. Estate of Casey

257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8920

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

DecidedJune 13, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1017 (Claim of Casey v. Estate of Casey) 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

Claim of Casey v. Estate of Casey, 257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the executrix of Cecelia H. Casey, deceased, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Rensselaer county, allowing two claims against the estate, one for $650 to John L. Casey, a brother, and another for ninety-three dollars to Joseph Casey, Jr., a nephew. It was established that John L. Casey had worked on the farm for eight years before the death of the testatrix. During the first two of those years the farm was operated by the then owner, Daniel Casey, a brother of testatrix and claimant, who devised it to this testatrix. She conducted it for six years and until the time of her death, with the aid of John L. Casey, who did general farm work for eight or nine months of each year, and during the remaining months performed some work. The value of the services, their performance, the expectation to pay therefor, and non-payment, were established by disinterested witnesses. The nephew, Joseph Casey, Jr., worked on the farm occasionally — he helped harvest the crops, cut wood, etc. His claim for ninety-three dollars was established by competent proof. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate, to the attorney for respondent, John L. Casey. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Hefíernan, JJ.

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

Appeal by the executrix of Cecelia H. Casey, deceased, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Rensselaer county, allowing two claims against the estate, one for $650 to John L. Casey, a brother, and another for ninety-three dollars to Joseph Casey, Jr., a nephew. It was established that John L. Casey had worked on the farm for eight years before the death of the testatrix. During the first two of those years the farm was operated by the then owner, Daniel Casey, a brother of testatrix and claimant, who devised it to this testatrix. She conducted it for six years and until the time of her death, with the aid of John L. Casey, who did general farm work for eight or nine months of each year, and during the remaining months performed some work. The value of the services, their performance, the expectation to pay therefor, and non-payment, were established by disinterested witnesses. The nephew, Joseph Casey, Jr., worked on the farm occasionally — he helped harvest the crops, cut wood, etc. His claim for ninety-three dollars was established by competent proof. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate, to the attorney for respondent, John L. Casey. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Hefíernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1017, 12 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-casey-v-estate-of-casey-nyappdiv-1939.