Muller v. Muller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Muller v. Muller

150 N.Y.S. 1098

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 150 N.Y.S. 1098 (Muller v. Muller) 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

Muller v. Muller, 150 N.Y.S. 1098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The evidence shows that, while plaintiff knew that the money was deposited to the joint account' of herself and her husband, she did not know the precise form of the several deposits, and did not understand, in signing the checks and other papers, or otherwise, that the estate claimed the deposits, or that she was releasing the same to the estate; nor was such her intention. In such regard the minds of the parties did not meet. Different inferences have been drawn by her sons from such participation as she had in the family counsels concerning the conduct of the business. But it does not satisfactorily appear that by assent to the propositions of others, or by her conduct, she consented to release her interest in the accounts, or understood that she was doing so. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The evidence shows that, while plaintiff knew that the money was deposited to the joint account' of herself and her husband, she did not know the precise form of the several deposits, and did not understand, in signing the checks and other papers, or otherwise, that the estate claimed the deposits, or that she was releasing the same to the estate; nor was such her intention. In such regard the minds of the parties did not meet. Different inferences have been drawn by her sons from such participation as she had in the family counsels concerning the conduct of the business. But it does not satisfactorily appear that by assent to the propositions of others, or by her conduct, she consented to release her interest in the accounts, or understood that she was doing so. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.Y.S. 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-muller-nyappdiv-1914.