Legal Opinion

In Re the Administration of the Estate of Mosher

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 12, 1906PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Motion for re-argument and to amend remittitur. (See 185 N. Y. 556.)

1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.

Elizabeth Sarles, the appellant, filed a claim for work, labor and services with the executor of the estate of Eose T. Mosher, deceased, which was referred to a referee to hear and determine. The referee after hearing the case filed his report in favor of the claimant, upon which judgment was entered. The executor thereupon appealed to the Appellate Division, first department, which court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial. An appeal was taken by the claimant to the Court of Appeals, and thereafter, upon application of the executor, the Appellate Division amended its order so as to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hirshfeld v. . FitzgeraldNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  2. Otten v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  3. Roberts v. . TobiasNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. Snebley v. . ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  5. Livingston v. . City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carroll v. . BullockNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  2. Matter of Honovich v. County of PutnamNew York Supreme Court, Putnam County · 2025
  3. Matter of Honovich v. County of PutnamNew York Supreme Court, Putnam County · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API