In re the Estate of Goldwater

175 Misc. 814, 25 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2578
New York Surrogate's Court·Decided December 2, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Delehanty, S.

In this accounting proceeding there is controversy respecting whether a premium paid on the redemption of certain bonds is to be credited to principal or to income account. The bonds were called at 105 and accrued interest. The court holds that the interest from the last coupon date to the date of redemption properly belongs in income account and that the premium paid for the privilege of redemption properly belongs in capital account. (Whittemore v. Beekman, 2 Dem. 275, 285; Scovel v. Roosevelt, 5 Redf. 121, 124, 128.) Here the court holds that the [815] premium paid constitutes a capital increase wholly. Income account will have the benefit of income on that increase but is not entitled to participate in the bonus paid for the privilege of redemption. The court sustains the objection of the special guardian in this respect. The compensation of the special guardian has been fixed.

Submit, on notice or consent, decree settling the account accordingly.

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

In re the Estate of Goldwater, 175 Misc. 814, 25 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2578 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1940).

175 Misc. 814 (In re the Estate of Goldwater) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luery v. Addington
76 N.E.2d 673 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1948)