Wilcox v. Drought
New York Supreme Court
Motion to confirm referee’s report as to surplus.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.
Concerning the nature and extent of the powers of a referee in surplus money proceedings the court, in Tator v. Adams, 20 Hun, 132, says: Although there.had previously been some doubt as to the powers of referees in proceedings to distribute surplus moneys, the deceision in Berger v. Snedeker, 21 Alb. L. J. 54, has settled the matter. It is held, and wisely held in that case, that a question of fraud may be investigated before the referee, and it follows, by analogy, that every question may be examined tending to show the equities of the claimants.” The court, therefore, held that the referee…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Dickerson v. TillinghastNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Munoz v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Schafer v. . ReillyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Wood v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Ten Eyck v. . WitbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Shankman v. HoroshkoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Citibank, N. A. v. SchroederAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- American Holdings Investment Corp. v. JoseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- North River Savings Bank v. BuckleyNew York Supreme Court · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.