Legal Opinion

Munson v. Howell

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1860Published

Appeal from an order, made at special term, affirming an adjustment of costs by the clerk. James L. Munson, the plaintiff in this proceeding, presented a claim to T. M. Howell and others, who were administrators of the estate of one Mallory, deceased ; and they disputing the claim, it was agreed that it should be referred under the' statute (2 Rev. St at., 89). The referees reported against the claimant, and the defendants entered up judgment for costs as in an action.

Read the full summary

Appeal from an order, made at special term, affirming an adjustment of costs by the clerk. James L. Munson, the plaintiff in this proceeding, presented a claim to T. M. Howell and others, who were administrators of the estate of one Mallory, deceased ; and they disputing the claim, it was agreed that it should be referred under the' statute (2 Rev. St at., 89). The referees reported against the claimant, and the defendants entered up judgment for costs as in an action. The adjustment of costs having been confirmed by the court at special term, on appeal from the clerk, the plaintiff appealed…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.*—E. Darwin Smith, J.—Section

—Section 41, of chapter 8, part 2, of the Revised Statutes (2 Ben. Stat., 4 ed., 224), provides that if executors or administrators doubt the justice of any claim presented to them, they may enter into agreement in writing to refer the matter in controversy to three disinterested persons, to be approved by the surrogate, and that on the filing of such agreement and approval in the office of a clerk of the Supreme Court, a rule shall be entered by such clerk, either in vacation or in term, referring the matter in controversy to the persons selected.

The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Boyd v. BigelowNew York Supreme Court · 1857

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

Powered by the Exa API