In Re the Appraisal of Property of Thorne

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Appraisal of Property of Thorne

56 N.E. 625, 162 N.Y. 238, 16 E.H. Smith 238, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1239

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 56 N.E. 625 (In Re the Appraisal of Property of Thorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Appraisal of Property of Thorne, 56 N.E. 625, 162 N.Y. 238, 16 E.H. Smith 238, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1239 (N.Y. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Haight, J.

The order of the Appellate Division reversed the decree of the surrogate “ upon the facts and the law.” Under the Constitution the jurisdiction of this court is limited to a review of questions of law only. It, therefore, has no power to review the determination of the Appellate Division in reversing upon the facts. An examination of the record clearly shows that a question of fact was involved.

Eunice E. Huff, the respondent, claimed that Thorne gave her one thousand shares of the American Press Association stock of the value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) before his death. In her testimony she makes several con *240 tradictory statements with reference to the transaction. The appraiser found that the transfer was made to her charged with a trust on her part to be performed of talcing care of Thorne during his life, and that the remainder was intended to vest in her and take effect at and after his death. The surrogate, in confirming the report of the appraiser, says: “ The testimony of Mrs. Huff is contradictory. The appraiser has adopted that version of her story which is most favorable to the state. In this I think he has adopted the correct rule. The witness is adverse. The result of her testimony means a difference of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to her. We must, therefore, assume that she would put that construction upon the transaction winch would be most favorable to her, and most likely to relieve her of a tax.” The Appellate Division reached a different conclusion. It adopted her claim that the gift was absolute and took effect at the time that it was made, and that the title to the stock vested in Mrs. Huff from that time. It is, therefore, apparent that a question of fact was involved which this court has no jurisdiction' to review. (Livingston v. City of Albany, 161 N. Y. 602.)

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

■ Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Landon, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Haight, J.

The order of the Appellate Division reversed the decree of the surrogate “ upon the facts and the law.” Under the Constitution the jurisdiction of this court is limited to a review of questions of law only. It, therefore, has no power to review the determination of the Appellate Division in reversing upon the facts. An examination of the record clearly shows that a question of fact was involved.

Eunice E. Huff, the respondent, claimed that Thorne gave her one thousand shares of the American Press Association stock of the value of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) before his death. In her testimony she makes several con *240 tradictory statements with reference to the transaction. The appraiser found that the transfer was made to her charged with a trust on her part to be performed of talcing care of Thorne during his life, and that the remainder was intended to vest in her and take effect at and after his death. The surrogate, in confirming the report of the appraiser, says: “ The testimony of Mrs. Huff is contradictory. The appraiser has adopted that version of her story which is most favorable to the state. In this I think he has adopted the correct rule. The witness is adverse. The result of her testimony means a difference of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to her. We must, therefore, assume that she would put that construction upon the transaction winch would be most favorable to her, and most likely to relieve her of a tax.” The Appellate Division reached a different conclusion. It adopted her claim that the gift was absolute and took effect at the time that it was made, and that the title to the stock vested in Mrs. Huff from that time. It is, therefore, apparent that a question of fact was involved which this court has no jurisdiction' to review. (Livingston v. City of Albany, 161 N. Y. 602.)

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

■ Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Martin, Vann and Landon, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.E. 625, 162 N.Y. 238, 16 E.H. Smith 238, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appraisal-of-property-of-thorne-ny-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack