In re Bloomer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bloomer

257 A.D. 901, 12 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8327

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

DecidedMay 25, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 901 (In re Bloomer) 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

In re Bloomer, 257 A.D. 901, 12 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Julienne A. Boesinger appeals from an order of Cortland County Surrogate’s Court which denies her application to vacate an order, made by the same court on March 29, 1939, under section 205 of the Surrogate's Court Act, which requires appellant to attend and be examined concerning certain property now-in her possession, and to show cause why she should not be required to deliver the same to the executrix of Ada L. Leins, deceased, it being asserted that the property belongs to the latter estate which is to be administered in Cortland county. Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs to the respondent against the appellant.

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

Julienne A. Boesinger appeals from an order of Cortland County Surrogate’s Court which denies her application to vacate an order, made by the same court on March 29, 1939, under section 205 of the Surrogate's Court Act, which requires appellant to attend and be examined concerning certain property now-in her possession, and to show cause why she should not be required to deliver the same to the executrix of Ada L. Leins, deceased, it being asserted that the property belongs to the latter estate which is to be administered in Cortland county. Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs to the respondent against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 901, 12 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bloomer-nyappdiv-1939.