Legal Opinion
Conkling v. First National Bank
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 2, 1955PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKimball, J.
The plaintiffs appealed from that part of the judgment which denied their application for an extra allowance and to recover their costs and disbursements and the extra allowance out of the share of the defendant, Wightman. The action was not one for the partition of real property nor do we think it may be held to be “a difficult and extraordinary case, whore a defense has been interposed in an action ”. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1513; Matter of Baker, 284 N. Y. 1.) We are satisfied that the application of the plaintiffs was properly denied.
*539The defendant bank appealed from that part of the judgment…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dunham v. LoverockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Pennsylvania Oil Products Refining Co. v. Willrock Producing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Butler Savings Bank v. OsborneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Matter of BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Di Niscia v. OlseyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
3Cited by5 opinions
- Davis v. M & M Developer, LLC (In re MBM Entertainment, LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Billson Housing Corp. v. HarrisonNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- Albany Savings Bank, FSB v. NovakNew York Supreme Court · 1991
- In Re NovakUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- Capasso v. CapassoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992