Havens v. Havens
215 A.D. 756
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1925·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Crouch and Taylor, JJ., who dissent and vote for reversal on the facts, upon the ground that Mary J. Brady did not intend to transfer to Carrie B. Havens any interest in the account which should be operative during her lifetime; she intended to exercise sole dominion over the fund so long as she lived; that her intent was merely testamentary. Present — ■ Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Taylor, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Havens v. Havens, 215 A.D. 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).
215 A.D. 756 (Havens v. Havens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Roe v. Meeker
283 P.2d 989 (Washington Supreme Court, 1955)
In Re Green's Estate
283 P.2d 989 (Washington Supreme Court, 1955)
In re the Estate of Jagodzinska
272 A.D.2d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1947)
In re the Estate of Jarmakowski
169 Misc. 463 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1938)
McDermott v. Bennett
253 A.D. 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)
Brumer v. Brumer
223 A.D. 186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Lofmark
131 Misc. 188 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1928)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Sanders
129 Misc. 780 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1927)
Claim of Houston v. Brown
217 A.D. 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)
Scanlan v. Meehan
216 A.D. 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)