In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Proceedings of Bank of Manhattan Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Proceedings of Bank of Manhattan Trust Co.

240 A.D. 767

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1933

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 767 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Proceedings of Bank of Manhattan Trust Co.) 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 Accounts of Proceedings of Bank of Manhattan Trust Co., 240 A.D. 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the acting surrogate of Suffolk county modified as follows: To require the appellant to supply a bill of particulars (a) stating whether the permission, consent, approval and ratification pleaded are oral or in writing; (b) if such permission, consent, approval and ratification are contained in a written agreement, setting forth a copy thereof, and if contained in an oral agreement, stating the substance thereof; (c) stating the general nature of the facts constituting the permission, consent, approval and ratification pleaded, if based upon respondent Kalbfleiseh’s conduct. The bill of particulars will be furnished within ten days after the examination before trial of respondent Kalbfleiseh shall have been completed. As so modified the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and dis[768]*768bursements to appellant, payable out of the estate. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

— Order of the acting surrogate of Suffolk county modified as follows: To require the appellant to supply a bill of particulars (a) stating whether the permission, consent, approval and ratification pleaded are oral or in writing; (b) if such permission, consent, approval and ratification are contained in a written agreement, setting forth a copy thereof, and if contained in an oral agreement, stating the substance thereof; (c) stating the general nature of the facts constituting the permission, consent, approval and ratification pleaded, if based upon respondent Kalbfleiseh’s conduct. The bill of particulars will be furnished within ten days after the examination before trial of respondent Kalbfleiseh shall have been completed. As so modified the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and dis[768]*768bursements to appellant, payable out of the estate. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-accounts-of-proceedings-of-bank-of-nyappdiv-1933.