In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Buck

New York Supreme Court

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Buck

56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 611

DecidedJuly 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 611 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Buck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme 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 Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Buck, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 611 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of tbe surrogate affirmed, with costs to be paid by the appellant personally.

Per GuHam:

“Ap-1 peal from a surrogate’s decree, made upon the final accounting of an administrator, and heard in this court upon a case which contains all the evidence. None of the exceptions to the! rulings upon the reception or exclusion of evidence are challenged in the brief of the appellant. Upon what terms Francis Buck occupied the farm of the decedent (bis father), was a question of fact, and tbe findings of the referee, confirmed by the Surrogate’s Court, are not contrary to the evidence. Assuming the terms of occupancy to have been correctly found, as we must, no error was committed in charging Francis Buck with the sums wh|ch he objects to on this appeal. Tbe decree of tbe Surrogate’s Court is affirmed, with costs, to he paid by the appellant personally.”

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

Decree of tbe surrogate affirmed, with costs to be paid by the appellant personally.

Per GuHam:

“Ap-1 peal from a surrogate’s decree, made upon the final accounting of an administrator, and heard in this court upon a case which contains all the evidence. None of the exceptions to the! rulings upon the reception or exclusion of evidence are challenged in the brief of the appellant. Upon what terms Francis Buck occupied the farm of the decedent (bis father), was a question of fact, and tbe findings of the referee, confirmed by the Surrogate’s Court, are not contrary to the evidence. Assuming the terms of occupancy to have been correctly found, as we must, no error was committed in charging Francis Buck with the sums wh|ch he objects to on this appeal. Tbe decree of tbe Surrogate’s Court is affirmed, with costs, to he paid by the appellant personally.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-accounts-of-buck-nysupct-1888.