In re Post

New York Supreme Court

In re Post

19 N.Y.S. 18, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 129, 64 Hun 635

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 13, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 N.Y.S. 18 (In re Post) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Post, 19 N.Y.S. 18, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 129, 64 Hun 635 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is premature. The surrogate had power, under section 2546 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make the original order of reference, and his action in appointing a referee thereunder is not the subject of review. In re Pearsall, (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 365. . Still less is his present action the subject of review. The order appealed from required the referee to proceed with the accounting as originally directed, and made no final disposition of the matter. When the referee has reported under this direction, and his report has been confirmed or set aside, and a final order of the surrogate made thereon, there will be a proper subject of review; but not until then. The matter at present is simply under investigation; none the less so because the surrogate set aside a report under the original order of reference which, if confirmed, would have been final. If the surrogate, in setting aside this report, had made a final order, that would have been ieview[19]*19able, but when he set it aside with directions to proceed anew under the principles laid down in his opinion, the whole matter was left in abeyance until che coming in of a further report, and until a final order is made upon such further report. The appeal should therefore be dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal is premature. The surrogate had power, under section 2546 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make the original order of reference, and his action in appointing a referee thereunder is not the subject of review. In re Pearsall, (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 365. . Still less is his present action the subject of review. The order appealed from required the referee to proceed with the accounting as originally directed, and made no final disposition of the matter. When the referee has reported under this direction, and his report has been confirmed or set aside, and a final order of the surrogate made thereon, there will be a proper subject of review; but not until then. The matter at present is simply under investigation; none the less so because the surrogate set aside a report under the original order of reference which, if confirmed, would have been final. If the surrogate, in setting aside this report, had made a final order, that would have been ieview[19]*19able, but when he set it aside with directions to proceed anew under the principles laid down in his opinion, the whole matter was left in abeyance until che coming in of a further report, and until a final order is made upon such further report. The appeal should therefore be dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.Y.S. 18, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 129, 64 Hun 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-post-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack