In re Troescher
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The appellant raises no question as to the form of procedure adopted and apparently concedes that the promissory note for $9,520 listed as an asset at its face amount, was worthless and without value at the time of the testator’s death. The only contentions raised are based upon the alleged lack of power of the Surrogate to modify the pro forma order fixing the amount of the tax after the time to appeal had elapsed. As a general proposition the Surrogate lacks such power but there are exceptions to the rule and, in our opinion, the undisputed facts presented by this record bring this case…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Herpe v. . HerpeNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- In Re the Appraisal of the Estate of ScrimgeourNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- In re the Transfer Tax upon the Estate of PutnamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- People Ex Rel. Bankers Trust Co. v. GravesNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Estate of SteigerwaldNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
- In re the Estate of McNeilNew York Surrogate's Court · 1967
- In re the Estate of KramekAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949
- In re the Estate of WatsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1970