In re the Estate of Betz
New York Surrogate's Court
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, S.
The decree of this court admitting the will to probate was “ affirmed, with costs to the respondents.” The *427Appellate Division did not direct costs to each respondent and, therefore, the respondents may tax but a single bill of costs jointly. (Van Gelder v. Van Gelder, 84 N. Y. 658; Fischer v. Langbein, 31 Hun, 272; Matter of Kinn, 139 App. Div. 766; N. R. S. Realty Corp. v. Forman, Inc., No. 1, 222 id. 680.)
Two bills of costs have been noticed for taxation by the respondents, and the objection to all the items in one of them, except disbursements, is sustained to the extent of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Van Gelder v. Van GelderNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- In re ThawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- In re KinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- In re FitterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1916
- In Re Proving the Will of ToneNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Estate of FriedgoodNew York Surrogate's Court · 1981