Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Harned

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided November 17, 1933PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

The findings of fact of the learned referee are confirmed. The mistake upon which the decree of June, 3, 1931, was predicated and as a result of which the payment by the respondent surety to the respondent William H. Harned, as administrator of the estate of Frances Ireland, deceased, was made, was clearly one of law. (Matter of Welton, 141 Misc. 674.) The referee has concluded that recovery by the respondent surety from the respondent administrator of the funds innocently received and substantially distributed by him should not be permitted, except only with respect to such…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Peyser v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. Ball v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Clark v. PinneyNew York Supreme Court · 1826
  4. In re the Estate of WeltonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
  5. Sturges v. Allis & LeeNew York Supreme Court · 1833

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Chemical BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  3. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. MonelloCivil Court of the City of New York · 1963
  4. Securities & Exchange Commission v. PriceDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2010
  5. In re the Estate of AmicoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API