Bullock v. Bogardus
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Motion for costs in a suit against an executor. The defendant’s testator died in 1842, and no order for publishing notice had been made, and no notice had been published for creditors to present their claims.
Read the full summary
Motion for costs in a suit against an executor. The defendant’s testator died in 1842, and no order for publishing notice had been made, and no notice had been published for creditors to present their claims. The suit was commenced in November, 1844, on a note made by the testator, and there was a default, assessment and rule, for judgment in January, 1845 ; damages, $101,90. The defendant had been called on to settle the note; and in July, 1844, he was written to and requested to pay in fifteen or twenty days, and threatened with a suit in case he did not do so. He answered the letter in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Beardsley, J.
Costs cannot be allowed in this case on the ground that payment “ was unreasonably resisted or neglected,” nor for a refusal to refer under the statute. The defendant is not shown to have had any assets in his hands with which he could have paid the note, and as the justice of the demand was not denied, there was nothing to refer. (2 R. S. 88, §§ 35 to 41.) But the executor had not given notice to the creditors to present their claims, and for this cause alone, it is urged, costs should be adjudged against him. I do not so understand the law. An executor is not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harvey v. Skillman'sNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by16 opinions
- Willcox v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Field v. . FieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- In re RecknagelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Fliess v. . BuckleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Callender's Administrator v. Keystone Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.