In re the Construction of the Will of Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Construction of the Will of Hale

11 A.D.2d 977, 209 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8188

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 977 (In re the Construction of the Will of Hale) 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 Construction of the Will of Hale, 11 A.D.2d 977, 209 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion of R. Glenn Hale, respondent-appellant, to require petitioners to accept the notice of appeal of said Hale dated August 5, 1960 and of copies of appeal undertaking and notice of filing thereof granted, with $10 costs. -Cross motion of petitioners to delete certain words from the decree of the Surrogate of Monroe County of July 7, 1960 denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The petitioners have not directed our attention to any statute or decision authorizing the procedure followed by them of returning a notice of appeal. Neither may this court amend a decree on motion by striking therefrom a portion thereof. The proper procedure is to move before the Surrogate to resettle the decree. We pass upon nd other question.

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

Motion of R. Glenn Hale, respondent-appellant, to require petitioners to accept the notice of appeal of said Hale dated August 5, 1960 and of copies of appeal undertaking and notice of filing thereof granted, with $10 costs. -Cross motion of petitioners to delete certain words from the decree of the Surrogate of Monroe County of July 7, 1960 denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The petitioners have not directed our attention to any statute or decision authorizing the procedure followed by them of returning a notice of appeal. Neither may this court amend a decree on motion by striking therefrom a portion thereof. The proper procedure is to move before the Surrogate to resettle the decree. We pass upon nd other question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 977, 209 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-construction-of-the-will-of-hale-nyappdiv-1960.