Stevens v. Melcher

New York Supreme Court

Stevens v. Melcher

34 N.Y.S. 1149, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 612, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 882

DecidedDecember 15, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 1149 (Stevens v. Melcher) 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

Stevens v. Melcher, 34 N.Y.S. 1149, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 612, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 882 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

No opinion. See memorandum on settlement of order. Memorandum for settlement of order: First. A reference will not be ordered as to insurance premiums, as those only can be allowed which the record before us.shows were paid; second, as to such amounts, we understand Mr. Zabriskie’s statement to be correct; third, in respect to the $90,000, the order will be in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Hoadley’s proposed order; fourth, adopting such course as to the $90,000, there would seem to be no occasion for striking out from the adjudication designated “tenth,” “that the said $100,000 and interest thereon were paid on the 6th day of March, 1894,” but it should be modified b^ adjudging that said legacy was not fully paid on the 6th day of March, 1894.

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

No opinion. See memorandum on settlement of order. Memorandum for settlement of order: First. A reference will not be ordered as to insurance premiums, as those only can be allowed which the record before us.shows were paid; second, as to such amounts, we understand Mr. Zabriskie’s statement to be correct; third, in respect to the $90,000, the order will be in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Hoadley’s proposed order; fourth, adopting such course as to the $90,000, there would seem to be no occasion for striking out from the adjudication designated “tenth,” “that the said $100,000 and interest thereon were paid on the 6th day of March, 1894,” but it should be modified b^ adjudging that said legacy was not fully paid on the 6th day of March, 1894.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 1149, 90 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 612, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-melcher-nysupct-1894.