In Re the Estate of Hirsch

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Estate of Hirsch

78 N.E. 294, 185 N.Y. 598, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1047

DecidedJune 12, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 78 N.E. 294 (In Re the Estate of Hirsch) 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 Estate of Hirsch, 78 N.E. 294, 185 N.Y. 598, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1047 (N.Y. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 2554 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of an execution to enforce the payment of moneys directed by the decree of a Surrogate’s Court, whether the sum to be paid consist in costs alone, or otherwise. Matter of Humfreville, (154 N. Y. 115), decided, under section 2555 of the Code, that a decree of that court for the payment of costs could not be enforced by imprisonment, in proceedings to punish for contempt; the ground for the decision being that section 15 of the Code forbade, generally, the enforcement of a decree for costs by imprisonment. That case, therefore, has no application to the present one.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Section 2554 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of an execution to enforce the payment of moneys directed by the decree of a Surrogate’s Court, whether the sum to be paid consist in costs alone, or otherwise. Matter of Humfreville, (154 N. Y. 115), decided, under section 2555 of the Code, that a decree of that court for the payment of costs could not be enforced by imprisonment, in proceedings to punish for contempt; the ground for the decision being that section 15 of the Code forbade, generally, the enforcement of a decree for costs by imprisonment. That case, therefore, has no application to the present one.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.E. 294, 185 N.Y. 598, 1906 N.Y. LEXIS 1047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hirsch-ny-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack