Feeter v. . Arkenburgh
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department made Hay-17, 1895, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing a reference to hear and determine. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. There was no proof that the trial would • involve the examination of a long account.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department made Hay-17, 1895, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing a reference to hear and determine. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. There was no proof that the trial would • involve the examination of a long account. (Camp v. Ingersoll, 86 N. Y. 435; Randall v. Sherman, 131 N. Y. 669.) The Special Term attempted a distinction, that while the items charged “ are in the matter of one estate, yet they seem to be, according to the bill of items…
1Opinion of the CourtBartlett, J.
The plaintiff, as an attorney and counselor at law, sued the defendant to recover $2,259.84 and interest for services rendered upon her retainer in drawing, copying and engrossing various instruments, examining accounts of certain executors and attending the accounting of the executors before surrogate, and in counseling and advising the defendant concerning her rights, duties and obligations as an executrix, and for divers journeys and other attendances in and about the business of defendant at her request, and for money paid, laid out and expended by the plaintiff at her request in and…
2Cited by41 opinions
- Hoffman v. KnollmanOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Hall Oil Co. v. BarquinWyoming Supreme Court · 1925
- Boedker v. Warren E. Richards Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1931
- Schanback v. SchanbackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Wagner v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1937
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.