In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Bartlett

264 A.D. 877, 35 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5215

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

DecidedJune 15, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 877 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Bartlett) 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 Final Account of Bartlett, 264 A.D. 877, 35 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, settling the executor’s final account, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court to take further proof in relation to the claim of respondent Lillian Linzer, with costs to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate. On this record it may not be said that the claim of Lillian Linzer has been established. There is no proof that the assignment in evidence, upon which her claim is based, was delivered to the decedent or was received by some one in his behalf; and further, if delivered or received, the conditions "of such delivery, if any, do not appear, although that may be the subject of inference from the recitals in the will. Upon the argument of the appeal it was suggested that further proof, tending to supply the deficiencies pointed out, may be furnished. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, settling the executor’s final account, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court to take further proof in relation to the claim of respondent Lillian Linzer, with costs to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate. On this record it may not be said that the claim of Lillian Linzer has been established. There is no proof that the assignment in evidence, upon which her claim is based, was delivered to the decedent or was received by some one in his behalf; and further, if delivered or received, the conditions "of such delivery, if any, do not appear, although that may be the subject of inference from the recitals in the will. Upon the argument of the appeal it was suggested that further proof, tending to supply the deficiencies pointed out, may be furnished. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 877, 35 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-final-account-of-bartlett-nyappdiv-1942.