In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sprague

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sprague

125 N.Y. 732, 3 Silv. Ct. App. 388, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 450

DecidedFebruary 6, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 125 N.Y. 732 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sprague) 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 Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Sprague, 125 N.Y. 732, 3 Silv. Ct. App. 388, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 450 (N.Y. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

The following is an extract from the opinion:

“ The surrogate did not make any findings as required by section 2545 of the Code, and the record does not contain any exceptions to the findings or to the decision of the surrogate. Therefore, the General Term did not have jurisdiction on the •appeal to it to review the surrogate’s decision upon the facts, and neither has this conrt. If the appellant desired to bring to the General Term or to this comb questions of fact or of law involved in the accounting, and to review the decisions of the surrogate in reference thereto, he should have procured findings of fact and of law, and should have made proper exceptions thereto. (Hewlett v. Elmer, 103 N. Y. 156, 164; Matter of the Judicial Settlement of Kellogg, 104 id. 648; Angevine v. Jackson, 103 id. 470.) ”

Earl, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The following is an extract from the opinion:

“ The surrogate did not make any findings as required by section 2545 of the Code, and the record does not contain any exceptions to the findings or to the decision of the surrogate. Therefore, the General Term did not have jurisdiction on the •appeal to it to review the surrogate’s decision upon the facts, and neither has this conrt. If the appellant desired to bring to the General Term or to this comb questions of fact or of law involved in the accounting, and to review the decisions of the surrogate in reference thereto, he should have procured findings of fact and of law, and should have made proper exceptions thereto. (Hewlett v. Elmer, 103 N. Y. 156, 164; Matter of the Judicial Settlement of Kellogg, 104 id. 648; Angevine v. Jackson, 103 id. 470.) ”

Earl, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 N.Y. 732, 3 Silv. Ct. App. 388, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-accounts-of-sprague-ny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack