In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sully

226 A.D. 846

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

DecidedMay 15, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D. 846 (In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sully) 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 Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sully, 226 A.D. 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Whatever may be the merits of the decree of April 12, 1909, it was binding upon the appellant if the Surrogate’s Court then had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the appellant, or of someone representing [847]*847her. The Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. (Matter of Young v. Hicks, 92 N. Y. 235; Matter of Richmond, 63 App. Div. 488.) Reynolds P. MacAlpine, as the donee of a general and beneficial power (Cutting v. Cutting, 86 N. Y. 522), represented bis subsequent appointee, the appellant, in that proceeding. The decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be affirmed, with costs. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Edgcomb and Thompson, JJ. Decree so far as appealed from affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Whatever may be the merits of the decree of April 12, 1909, it was binding upon the appellant if the Surrogate’s Court then had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the appellant, or of someone representing [847]*847her. The Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. (Matter of Young v. Hicks, 92 N. Y. 235; Matter of Richmond, 63 App. Div. 488.) Reynolds P. MacAlpine, as the donee of a general and beneficial power (Cutting v. Cutting, 86 N. Y. 522), represented bis subsequent appointee, the appellant, in that proceeding. The decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be affirmed, with costs. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Edgcomb and Thompson, JJ. Decree so far as appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D. 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-final-judicial-settlement-of-the-accounts-of-sully-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack