In re Stults

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stults

245 A.D. 744

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

DecidedJune 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 744 (In re Stults) 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 Stults, 245 A.D. 744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county, in so far as it adjudges that appellant’s claim, as an assignee, for medical services rendered to the testator by Dr. Mary E. Potter be dismissed, reversed on the law and the facts, and the claim allowed to the extent of $5,000, with costs to all parties, payable out of the estate. There is believable evidence that Dr. Potter frequently treated the decedent, both at her office and at decedent’s home, and the relationship existing between them was not so close as to give rise to the presumption that the services were gratuitous. The commissions accruing to Dr. Potter as executrix may not be considered as an offset to her claim for medical services. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county, in so far as it adjudges that appellant’s claim, as an assignee, for medical services rendered to the testator by Dr. Mary E. Potter be dismissed, reversed on the law and the facts, and the claim allowed to the extent of $5,000, with costs to all parties, payable out of the estate. There is believable evidence that Dr. Potter frequently treated the decedent, both at her office and at decedent’s home, and the relationship existing between them was not so close as to give rise to the presumption that the services were gratuitous. The commissions accruing to Dr. Potter as executrix may not be considered as an offset to her claim for medical services. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stults-nyappdiv-1935.