MacFarlane v. Brower

63 Misc. 183, 116 N.Y.S. 34
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 63 Misc. 183 (MacFarlane v. Brower) 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
MacFarlane v. Brower, 63 Misc. 183, 116 N.Y.S. 34 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1909).

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

Motion to confirm referee’s report of sale and for final judgment granted. Hnder the rule laid down in Dor emus v. Crosby, 66 Hun, 125, there cannot be allowed to the parties in the aggregate more than five per cent, upon the whole value of the property sought to be partitioned. In other' words, where the property brings $80,000, or more, $4,0'00 can be awarded in the aggregate, or $2,000 to each side. The infant defendants, Henry B. Manning, Jr., and John L. Manning, have no present interest in the proceeds of the sale, and, therefore, an allowance in addition to the taxable costs cannot be made to their guardian ad litem. Matter of Holden, 126 N. Y. 589, 596; Doremus v. Crosby, supra; Matter of Robinson, No. 2, 40 App. Div. 30; Walter v. Walter, 60 Misc. Rep. 570. The latter is, therefore, entitled to taxable costs and no more out [185]*185of the estate, and, as his wards have no present interest, there is nothing out of which an allowance can he made to him. An additional allowance cannot be granted to the mortgagee. Doremus v. Crosby, supra,. An additional allowance, estimated upon the amount realized, above mortgages, upon the sale of the various parcels of land in suit, in conformity with the rule laid down in Doremus v. Crosby, supra, is made to each of the following parties litigant, viz.: The plaintiffs, $1,300; the twenty-one defendants who are represented by Mr. Matthew C. Fleming, $25; the defendant Baltazzi, $275 ; the defendants Arthur W., John E. and Clara Lovett, $50; the guardian ad litem for the defendant Shaw Lovett, $50, in addition to taxable costs. The final judgment will be settled on notice. The defendant Baltazzi ought to submit and serve a form of final judgment containing a provision of the character referred to in her counsel’s brief.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Matter of Application of Holden
27 N.E. 1063 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
In re the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Robinson
40 A.D. 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Walter v. Walter
60 Misc. 570 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)
Doremus v. Doremus
20 N.Y.S. 906 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 Misc. 183, 116 N.Y.S. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macfarlane-v-brower-nysupct-1909.