In re Kemp's Estate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kemp's Estate

40 N.Y.S. 1144, 7 A.D. 609

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

DecidedJune 29, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 N.Y.S. 1144 (In re Kemp's Estate) 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 Kemp's Estate, 40 N.Y.S. 1144, 7 A.D. 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is clearly within the principles laid down in Re Baudoine (Sup.) 39 N. Y. Supp. 1120, and in Re Livingston, 1 App. Div. 568, 37 N. Y. Supp. 463. Indeed, the principle’of the Livingston Case is more decisive than that enunciated in the Baudoine Case. As to the stock of the Times corporation, the ruling of the surrogate was acquiesced in; and, further, the surrogate offered to send the case back on that head, and that offer was not accepted by the executors. The only error we find in this record is the allowance of $25 to the special guardian. We think that the appointment of a special guardian was wholly unnecessary upon the facts in this case, and that the rule laid down in the Post Case (Sup.) 38 N. Y. Supp. 977, on that subject, is applicable. The order should therefore be modified by striking out the allowance of $25 to the special guardian, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is clearly within the principles laid down in Re Baudoine (Sup.) 39 N. Y. Supp. 1120, and in Re Livingston, 1 App. Div. 568, 37 N. Y. Supp. 463. Indeed, the principle’of the Livingston Case is more decisive than that enunciated in the Baudoine Case. As to the stock of the Times corporation, the ruling of the surrogate was acquiesced in; and, further, the surrogate offered to send the case back on that head, and that offer was not accepted by the executors. The only error we find in this record is the allowance of $25 to the special guardian. We think that the appointment of a special guardian was wholly unnecessary upon the facts in this case, and that the rule laid down in the Post Case (Sup.) 38 N. Y. Supp. 977, on that subject, is applicable. The order should therefore be modified by striking out the allowance of $25 to the special guardian, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.Y.S. 1144, 7 A.D. 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kemps-estate-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack