In re the Estate of Goldwater

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Goldwater

175 Misc. 814, 25 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2578

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 Misc. 814 (In re the Estate of Goldwater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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]*815premium 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

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]*815premium 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Misc. 814, 25 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1940 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-goldwater-nysurct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack