In re the Accounting of Crawford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Accounting of Crawford

18 A.D.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 985 (In re the Accounting of Crawford) 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 the Accounting of Crawford, 18 A.D.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of increasing the attorneys’ fees allowed objeetants-appellants to $5,000, and is otherwise affirmed, with costs to parties filing briefs in this court, payable out of the residuary trusts. The distinction between shares of stock distributed as a result of a stock split-up and a stock dividend has been authoritatively defined by the courts (Matter of Fosdick, 4 N Y 2d 646, 653; Matter of Horrmann, 3 A D 2d 5). In the absence of language in the will in this case more clearly manifesting a contrary treatment, the authorities cited are controlling. Under all the circumstances, however, objeetants-appellants are entitled to an allowance of attorneys’ fees in a greater amount than that allowed by the Surrogate. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Decree unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of increasing the attorneys’ fees allowed objeetants-appellants to $5,000, and is otherwise affirmed, with costs to parties filing briefs in this court, payable out of the residuary trusts. The distinction between shares of stock distributed as a result of a stock split-up and a stock dividend has been authoritatively defined by the courts (Matter of Fosdick, 4 N Y 2d 646, 653; Matter of Horrmann, 3 A D 2d 5). In the absence of language in the will in this case more clearly manifesting a contrary treatment, the authorities cited are controlling. Under all the circumstances, however, objeetants-appellants are entitled to an allowance of attorneys’ fees in a greater amount than that allowed by the Surrogate. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-crawford-nyappdiv-1963.