In re the Substitution of Attorneys for Durban

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Substitution of Attorneys for Durban

177 A.D. 898

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 A.D. 898 (In re the Substitution of Attorneys for Durban) 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 Substitution of Attorneys for Durban, 177 A.D. 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Durban’s assignment to his stepdaughter of April 26, 1916, was between parties already cited into the Surrogate’s Court, and signed during the pendency of the probate proceedings. It purported to pass rights under the will if admitted, or, if the will be rejected, then to cover all Mr. Durban’s interest, as husband and as next of kin, in the distribution of the estate. We cannot say that to take testimony as to the execution, delivery and validity of this assignment would be beyond the surrogate’s powers, as enlarged by the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2510. As we read the order, it does not contemplate passing on the question of any subsequent breach thereof, in case it should be found that the purported assignment had a valid inception. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Richmond county affirmed, but without costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

Mr. Durban’s assignment to his stepdaughter of April 26, 1916, was between parties already cited into the Surrogate’s Court, and signed during the pendency of the probate proceedings. It purported to pass rights under the will if admitted, or, if the will be rejected, then to cover all Mr. Durban’s interest, as husband and as next of kin, in the distribution of the estate. We cannot say that to take testimony as to the execution, delivery and validity of this assignment would be beyond the surrogate’s powers, as enlarged by the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2510. As we read the order, it does not contemplate passing on the question of any subsequent breach thereof, in case it should be found that the purported assignment had a valid inception. Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Richmond county affirmed, but without costs. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D. 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-substitution-of-attorneys-for-durban-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack