In re the Bridgeport Brass Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by Rose Fleischman, petitioner herein, from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county, entered in said court on the 24th day of May, 1912, denying her application for an order relieving her from her purchase, etc.
1Opinion of the Court
Jenks, P. J.:
The order is affirmed for the reasons stated by the learned surrogate in his opinion (77 Misc. Rep. 69). Mr. Jessup in his Surrogate’s *911Practice (4th ed. pp. 1033, 1033), commenting upon similar decisions by the same surrogate, suggests that maugre the amendments of 1904* the surrogate still has jurisdiction, under certain subdivisions of section 3481 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (But see Redf. Surr. [7th ed.] § 886 et seq., and Heaton Surr. [1909 Rev.] § 833.) Mr. Jessup further suggests that the surrogate should assert and exercise jurisdiction, if possible, in order to avoid…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re the Bridgeport Brass Co.New York Surrogate's Court · 1912