Bronson v. Ward
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the respondents to dismiss the appeal, which had been entered with the surrogate of the county of Oneida, on the ground that the appeal had not been entered within the time allowed by the statute; and also on the ground that no petition of appeal had been filed, or transcript returned, as required by the 118th rule of this court.
Read the full summary
This was an application on the part of the respondents to dismiss the appeal, which had been entered with the surrogate of the county of Oneida, on the ground that the appeal had not been entered within the time allowed by the statute; and also on the ground that no petition of appeal had been filed, or transcript returned, as required by the 118th rule of this court. The order appealed from was for the payment of the amount due to the several respondents as creditors of the intestate ; and it was founded upon a citation issued upon the application of H. Ward, upon which the other two…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
From an examination of the facts in this case, I am satisfied the decree of the surrogate, appealed from in this case, was not a decree for the final settlement of the account of the administrator, within the meaning and intent of those provisions of the revised statutes which allow three months for the appeal from such a decree. (2 R. 8. 95, § 67. Id. 610, § 105.) The proceedings were instituted in 1828, under the provisions of the laws then in force, and which only allowed thirty days for an appeal. The same distinction, however, existed at that túne, as now, between a final…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Musick v. BeebeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Disosway v. Bank of WashingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Marsh v. . AveryNew York Court of Appeals · 1880