Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Hyde
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided October 29, 1941PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Foley, S.
This is a contested accounting proceeding.(1) The major question arises out of the claim of Hilbert B. Matthesen. It is based upon a judgment recovered by the claimant against the decedent in the City Court of the City of New York in the sum of $1,144.15, docketed on February 21, 1918. By virtue of the terms of section 44 of the Civil Practice Act such a judgment is presumed to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of twenty years from the time when the party recovering it was first entitled to a mandate to enforce it. This period of limitation expired on February 21, 1938. The…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Petersen v. . Chemical BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Ryalls v. Mechanics' MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Connecticut Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. WeadNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Sexauer & Lemke v. Luke A. Burke & Sons Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Countryman v. BreenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Estate of AndrewsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1942
- In re the Estate of ShermanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
- In re the Estate of MarinoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1954
- McQueen v. Bank of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 2017