In re Ries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ries

170 A.D. 951, 155 N.Y.S. 1136, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D. 951 (In re Ries) 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 Ries, 170 A.D. 951, 155 N.Y.S. 1136, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

The surrogate’s right and duty to bring in an interested party who has not been named in the original citation is in furtherance of equity. (Matter of Ibert, 48 App. Div. 510.) No ground is disclosed to review or modify this exercise of the surrogate’s powers. The petition was also in proper form. Where the applicants reside out of the county, and the matters are peculiarly within the attorney’s knowledge, the attorney may properly verify such a petition. (Moorhouse v. Hutchinson, 2 Dem. 429.) The surrogate’s order permitting an amendment and the issue of a supplemental citation to bring in the mortgagee was, therefore, right. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

The surrogate’s right and duty to bring in an interested party who has not been named in the original citation is in furtherance of equity. (Matter of Ibert, 48 App. Div. 510.) No ground is disclosed to review or modify this exercise of the surrogate’s powers. The petition was also in proper form. Where the applicants reside out of the county, and the matters are peculiarly within the attorney’s knowledge, the attorney may properly verify such a petition. (Moorhouse v. Hutchinson, 2 Dem. 429.) The surrogate’s order permitting an amendment and the issue of a supplemental citation to bring in the mortgagee was, therefore, right. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D. 951, 155 N.Y.S. 1136, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ries-nyappdiv-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack