Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Hinkley
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided October 11, 1944PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, S.
A preliminary observation should be made with respect to the title used in the papers. All petitions, orders, etc., should, in the title, prominently set forth the name of the person to whose estate or fund the proceeding relates, and, in more or less specific terms, the nature of the proceeding. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 51; 1 Warren’s Heaton on Surrogates’ Courts, § 66.1.)
*169A petition was presented to the Surrogate and an order made, pursuant to section 249-t of the Tax Law, directing the Central National Bank of Washingtonville to permit the petitioner, in the presence of a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Lockwood v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Parilli v. Brooklyn City RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- Sagendorph v. First National Bank of PhilmontAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Moller v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Estate of FrenchNew York Surrogate's Court · 1952