Arnold v. Haronn
New York Supreme Court
Case agreed upon and submitted to the court under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant, Laura S. Haronn, is the'daughter of the plaintiff’s testator, Milo Kellogg; the parties reside in Monroe county, New York. Defendant made and executed to her father, Milo Kellogg, an instrument, in words and figures following: “ OgdeN, Sej>temher 3, 1872. “ Received from my father, Milo Kellogg, $900, .to be deducted from my part of his estate.
Read the full summary
Case agreed upon and submitted to the court under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant, Laura S. Haronn, is the'daughter of the plaintiff’s testator, Milo Kellogg; the parties reside in Monroe county, New York. Defendant made and executed to her father, Milo Kellogg, an instrument, in words and figures following: “ OgdeN, Sej>temher 3, 1872. “ Received from my father, Milo Kellogg, $900, .to be deducted from my part of his estate. (Signed) “LAURA S. HARONN.” There was indorsed upon the back of the writing, in the handwriting of Milo Kellogg, the testator, the following:…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, J.:
Had Mr. Kellogg left a will containing a devise to plaintiff, expressing his intention to treat the §900 as an advancement, or had the advancement be.en made after the will had been executed, then the advancement might have been deemed an ademption of the legacy; but having by his will disposed of his entire estate, the amount received by the defendant cannot be regarded as an advancement. This doctrine is established in Thompson v. The Executors of Carmichael (3 Sandf. Ch., 120); Clark v. Kingsley (37 Hun, 246; 4 Kent’s Com., 418, 419); Hays v. Hibbard (3 Redf., 28); and there are…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hine v. HineNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Hays v. HibbardNew York Surrogate's Court · 1877