TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Judicial Settlement of the intermediate Account of Proceedings of Brown

In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of Proceedings of Elliott L. Brown, as etc., of J. Romaine Brown, Elliott L. Brown, Individually and as and Trustee, Appellant David S. Murden, Special Guardian, and Central Union Trust Company of New York, as Trustee

In re the Judicial Settlement of the intermediate Account of Proceedings of Brown, 225 A.D. 759 (1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 15, 1928
Citations
225 A.D. 759

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county modified by striking therefrom paragraphs marked “ ninth ” and “ tenth,” and by substituting in place thereof a provision that the “ ninth ” objection of the special guardian, and the " third ” and “ fourth ” objections of the Central Union Trust Company of New York, as trustee, are disallowed. This court is of the opinion that the admissions of the testator that he had given the bank stock to his son, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, sufficiently evidenced a delivery of the subject of the gift. (Matter of Wiemann, 220 App. Div. 276 .) As so modified the decree is affirmed, with taxable costs to all parties, payable out of the estate. Rich, Seeger and Scudder, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., also votes to modify the “ eighth ” paragraph of the decree in so far as it sustains the “ eighth ” objection of the special guardian and that part of the “ second ” objection of the Central Union Trust Company of New York which refers to the cheek for $17,000, and to disallow said objections. Lazansky, P. J., and Young, J., dissent, being of opinion that as to the matters referred to in the “ ninth ” and “ tenth ” paragraphs of the decree there was not a valid gift. Settle order on notice.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1945: 11975: 119452026peak 1945 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Somerset Apts., Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation342 A.2d 520 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
  2. Redman v. Mealey270 A.D. 75 (1945)

Most recent

  1. Somerset Apts., Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation342 A.2d 520 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
  2. Redman v. Mealey270 A.D. 75 (1945)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Wiemann, 220 A.D. 276 (1927) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list