In Re the Estate of Olney

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Estate of Olney

22 N.E.2d 252, 281 N.Y. 98, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 985

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 11, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 N.E.2d 252 (In Re the Estate of Olney) 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 Olney, 22 N.E.2d 252, 281 N.Y. 98, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 985 (N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appeal must be dismissed upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction as the order is not a final order. The order does not end the proceeding in so far as appellant is concerned as to any part thereof. It does not irrevocably determine its rights, irrevocably change its position, or sever the proceeding. The reason why it is not irrevocable is that the payment is to itself and can always be restored. There still remains the necessity of a further hearing in the Surrogate’s Court. (Matter of Clift, 256 N. Y. 680; Maggi v. Sabatini, 250 N. Y. 296; Cohen on The Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p. 31, § 9.)

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; O’Brien, J., taking no part.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The appeal must be dismissed upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction as the order is not a final order. The order does not end the proceeding in so far as appellant is concerned as to any part thereof. It does not irrevocably determine its rights, irrevocably change its position, or sever the proceeding. The reason why it is not irrevocable is that the payment is to itself and can always be restored. There still remains the necessity of a further hearing in the Surrogate’s Court. (Matter of Clift, 256 N. Y. 680; Maggi v. Sabatini, 250 N. Y. 296; Cohen on The Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p. 31, § 9.)

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; O’Brien, J., taking no part.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E.2d 252, 281 N.Y. 98, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-olney-ny-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack