In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Baum

121 A.D. 496, 106 N.Y.S. 113, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 121 A.D. 496 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Baum) 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 Judicial Settlement of the Account of Baum, 121 A.D. 496, 106 N.Y.S. 113, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

This appellant and his wife owned a piece óf real estate as tenants by the- entirety.. They conveyed it, and took back a purchase-[497]*497money bond and mortgage made payable to both of them for part of the purchase money. He owned another piece of real estate, conveyed it, she joining, and took back a like'purchase money bond and mortgage made payable in the same way. She afterwards died and lie is-her administrator. The surrogate has charged him. as such administrator with one-lialf of the proceeds of the said bonds and mortgages, they having been paid since the wife’s death. He claims that he is entitled to the whole of such proceeds as survivor, and appeals. The law of ownership or tenancy by the entirety does not apply to personal property. To enable the husband to take the whole by survivorship there would therefore have to be an agreement to that effect, or a gift causa mortis, and there is neither here. That one of the pieces of land was owned by the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety does not make a different case. When it was sold such tenancy "was ended (Matter of Albrecht, 136 N. Y. 91).

The decree of the surrogate should be affirmed.

Hirsohbero, P. J., Woodward, Jenks . and Midler, <TJ., concurred.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county in so far as appealed from affirmed, with costs payable out of the fund.

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

Related

Panushka v. Panushka
349 P.2d 450 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1960)
In re the Accounting of Faeth
200 Misc. 143 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1951)
In re City of New York
252 A.D. 103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
In re the Estate of Maguire
161 Misc. 219 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1936)
Hafner v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 338 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1934)
In re the Estate of Luippold
146 Misc. 46 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1933)
Villone v. Villone
135 Misc. 512 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Lofmark
131 Misc. 188 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1928)
In re the Estate of Moran
127 Misc. 232 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1925)
Cogan v. Taylor
212 A.D. 8 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Brosnan v. Gaffney
209 A.D. 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
In Re the Estate of Blumenthal
141 N.E. 911 (New York Court of Appeals, 1923)
Stout v. Van Zante
219 P. 804 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
In re the Estate of Blumenthal
119 Misc. 588 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1922)
Stretz v. Zolkoski
118 Misc. 806 (New York Supreme Court, 1922)
In re the Appraisal of the Estate of Thompson
10 Mills Surr. 405 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1913)
Wegmann v. Kress
141 N.Y.S. 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1912)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Rapelje
7 Mills Surr. 415 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D. 496, 106 N.Y.S. 113, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-account-of-baum-nyappdiv-1907.