In re Klenk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Klenk

150 N.Y.S. 365, 165 A.D. 917, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 N.Y.S. 365 (In re Klenk) 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 Klenk, 150 N.Y.S. 365, 165 A.D. 917, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband and wife became joint tenants of the $14,000 depositéd (Kelly v. Beers, 194 N. Y. 49, 86 N. E. 980, 128 Am. St. Rep. 543; Matter of Meehan, 59 App. Div. 156, 69 N. Y. Supp. 9; Platt v. Grubb, 41 Hun, 447; Matter of Kaupper, 141 App. Div. 54, 125 N. Y. Supp. 878; Kelly v. Home Savings Bank, 103 App. Div. 141, 92 N. Y. Supp. 578; Sanford v. Sanford, 45 N. Y. 723; McElroy v. Albany Savings Bank, 8 App. Div. 46, 40 N. Y. Supp. 422, and the husband was not ousted from such tenancy by her withdrawal of the money and by the deposit of it elsewhere, or by loaning a part of [366]*366it and receiving a note therefor (O’Connor v. Dunnigan, 158 App. Div. 334, 143 N. Y. Supp. 373).

The decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the surrogate, to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband and wife became joint tenants of the $14,000 depositéd (Kelly v. Beers, 194 N. Y. 49, 86 N. E. 980, 128 Am. St. Rep. 543; Matter of Meehan, 59 App. Div. 156, 69 N. Y. Supp. 9; Platt v. Grubb, 41 Hun, 447; Matter of Kaupper, 141 App. Div. 54, 125 N. Y. Supp. 878; Kelly v. Home Savings Bank, 103 App. Div. 141, 92 N. Y. Supp. 578; Sanford v. Sanford, 45 N. Y. 723; McElroy v. Albany Savings Bank, 8 App. Div. 46, 40 N. Y. Supp. 422, and the husband was not ousted from such tenancy by her withdrawal of the money and by the deposit of it elsewhere, or by loaning a part of [366]*366it and receiving a note therefor (O’Connor v. Dunnigan, 158 App. Div. 334, 143 N. Y. Supp. 373).

The decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the surrogate, to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.Y.S. 365, 165 A.D. 917, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-klenk-nyappdiv-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack