In re Prime

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Prime

254 A.D. 685, 3 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138

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

DecidedApril 8, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 685 (In re Prime) 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 Prime, 254 A.D. 685, 3 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Cross-appeals from a decree in an action for an accounting. Decree modified by striking out the amount of the additional allowance and as thus modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. This was not a difficult or extraordinary ease within the meaning of section 1513 of the Civil Practice Act. Matters of record not presented upon the trial may be received and considered only on an appeal to sustain a judgment. They may not be considered to reverse a judgment. (Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 N. Y. 148.) Even though they were considered in this case, no different result would ensue. Proposed finding No. 24, inadvertently found by the referee, is reversed as inconsistent with the decision. Conclusion of law No. 10 is modified by striking out additional allowance of $500. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

Cross-appeals from a decree in an action for an accounting. Decree modified by striking out the amount of the additional allowance and as thus modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. This was not a difficult or extraordinary ease within the meaning of section 1513 of the Civil Practice Act. Matters of record not presented upon the trial may be received and considered only on an appeal to sustain a judgment. They may not be considered to reverse a judgment. (Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 N. Y. 148.) Even though they were considered in this case, no different result would ensue. Proposed finding No. 24, inadvertently found by the referee, is reversed as inconsistent with the decision. Conclusion of law No. 10 is modified by striking out additional allowance of $500. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 685, 3 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-prime-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack