Utica National Bank & Trust Co. v. Grossman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
Under the stipulation of the parties this was a discovery proceeding, and the Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction to dispose of every claim to property involved in it. (Surr. Ct. Act, §§ 40, subd. 4, 205, 206; Matter of Akin, 248 N. Y. 202, 206.) That court should have weighed the evidence and passed upon the controversy on the merits. It not having done so, we decline to consider the facts (Surr. Ct. Act, § 309), although the appeal is upon the facts as well as upon the law. Under section 309 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, it is at least doubtful whether under the circumstances we have power…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- West v. McCulloughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of KaupperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- In Re the Estate of AkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- West v. . McCulloughNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of RosenblathNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- In re the Estate of RazouxNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935