In Re the Accounting of Central Trust Co.
New York Court of Appeals
No competent evidence was introduced by the executor to substantiate the alleged loan. (Leask v. Hoagland, 205 N. Y. 171; Phillips v. McCombs, 53 N. Y. 494; Lowery v. Erskine, 113 N. Y. 52; Griffin v. Train, 90 App. Div. 16; Marrow v. Moskowitz, 225 N. Y. 219; Gorton v. Lane, 208 App. Div. 833; Hutson v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 118 Mise. Rep. 795; Sumner v. Sumner, 128 Mise. Rep. 404; 221 App. Div. 760; Matter of Wendell, 121 Mise.
Read the full summary
No competent evidence was introduced by the executor to substantiate the alleged loan. (Leask v. Hoagland, 205 N. Y. 171; Phillips v. McCombs, 53 N. Y. 494; Lowery v. Erskine, 113 N. Y. 52; Griffin v. Train, 90 App. Div. 16; Marrow v. Moskowitz, 225 N. Y. 219; Gorton v. Lane, 208 App. Div. 833; Hutson v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 118 Mise. Rep. 795; Sumner v. Sumner, 128 Mise. Rep. 404; 221 App. Div. 760; Matter of Wendell, 121 Mise. Rep. 569; Flannery v. Van Tassel, 127 N. Y. 631; Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630; Slevin v. Wallace, 64 Hun, 288; 144 N. Y. 635; Linden v. Thieriot, 96 App.…
1Per curiam
No error appears in this record, except the inclusion of interest. The evidence sustains an advancement or ademption but not the theory of a loan. Therefore, interest should not have been included. (Cole v. Andrews, 83 App. Div. 285; affd., 176 N. Y. 374.)
The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.
Ordered accordingly.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cole v. . AndrewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Cole v. AndrewsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Accounting of LinkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962