In re Kemp's Estate

40 N.Y.S. 1144, 7 A.D. 609
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 1896·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

40 N.Y.S. 1144 (In re Kemp's Estate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Van v. Lewis
41 Misc. 355 (New York Supreme Court, 1903)
Jacquelin v. Morning Journal Ass'n
39 A.D. 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)