Legal Opinion

Ehnes v. Nolan

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1953PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBenvenga, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff, a creditor of one William E. Murphy, deceased, brings an action under section 170 of the Decedent Estate Law to recover from the legatees of a deceased legatee of the deceased debtor Murphy, to the extent of the assets received by defendants-legatees from the estate of their testator who previously, *103by way of legacy, received a portion of the deceased debtor’s estate.

Under section 170, an action may be maintained against “ the surviving husband or wife of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Platt v. . PlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  2. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. Wechsler EstateNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. Colgan v. DunneNew York Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Rogers v. PattersonNew York Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Personeni v. . GoodaleNew York Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. City of New York v. Nic Homes, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1964
  2. Corcoran & Kostelanetz v. DupuyNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Ehnes v. NolanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API