Merrill v. Parsons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrill v. Parsons

166 A.D. 972, 151 N.Y.S. 794, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D. 972 (Merrill v. Parsons) 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

Merrill v. Parsons, 166 A.D. 972, 151 N.Y.S. 794, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Both parties offered as testimony the evidence in the record which was before us in Matter of Merrill (151 App. Div. 785). The facts have not been changed. The administrators’ accounts have been surcharged with this payment. It would seem inequitable if they should not be allowed to recover it back from the attorney to whom it has been held that they have unlawfully paid the same. The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. All concurred, except Woodward, J., who voted to affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Gladding at Special Term, and Lyon, J., not voting. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam:

Both parties offered as testimony the evidence in the record which was before us in Matter of Merrill (151 App. Div. 785). The facts have not been changed. The administrators’ accounts have been surcharged with this payment. It would seem inequitable if they should not be allowed to recover it back from the attorney to whom it has been held that they have unlawfully paid the same. The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. All concurred, except Woodward, J., who voted to affirm on the opinion of Mr. Justice Gladding at Special Term, and Lyon, J., not voting. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D. 972, 151 N.Y.S. 794, 1915 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-v-parsons-nyappdiv-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack