Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Weissman
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided June 2, 1931PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Wingate, S.
Since the days of the Revised Statutes it has been the legislative policy of the State to consider a decedent’s real property the primary source of payment of incumbrances thereon. The pertinent enactment is now contained in section 250 of the Real Property Law. While this statute in terms applies merely to the relations existing between the heir or devisee and the estate of the decedent, it has, by judicial construction, been extended in a certain measure to the mortgagee. This is noted in Hauselt v. Patterson (124 N. Y. 349), in which the court says (at p. 359): “ While the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Olmstead v. . LatimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Johnson v. CorbettNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Hauselt v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Erwin v. . LoperNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Olmstead v. LatimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In re the Estate of MelzakNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- In re the Estate of GellisNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- In re the Estate of BaldwinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- In re the Estate of ShafranNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- In re the Estate of FerberNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.