Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Betz

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided July 27, 1934PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Van Gelder v. Van GelderNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. In re ThawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
  3. In re KinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  4. In re FitterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1916
  5. In Re Proving the Will of ToneNew York Court of Appeals · 1919

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re the Estate of FriedgoodNew York Surrogate's Court · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API