Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Leeds
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided January 18, 1935PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
When this application was first presented, it was the understanding of the court that the motion of the accountant to strike out the objections of the respondent applied to all objections *229which had been filed. It has been made to appear that this conception was erroneous and was caused by the failure of the moving parties to file their notice limiting the issues raised by their application. In conformity with the agreement of all concerned, the respondent has amended its objection in three particulars and the present application is to dismiss these amended objections.
By his will,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- In re HornidgeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929
- Sokoloff v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Villard v. . VillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Weeks v. . CornwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of BradfordNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
- In re the Estate of NowickiNew York Surrogate's Court · 1973