Rogers v. . Rogers
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered ¡November 22, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court rendered upon a trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. The testimony of the defendant Rogers should have been admitted. (Code Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered ¡November 22, 1895, which affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court rendered upon a trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. The testimony of the defendant Rogers should have been admitted. (Code Civ. Pro. §§ 828, 829 ; Wilcox v. Corwin, 117 N. Y. 502; Lewis v. Merritt, 98 N. Y. 208; Nay v. Curley, 113 N. Y. 577; Grey v. Grey, 47 N. Y. 552 ; Taber v. Willets, 44 Hun, 346 ; Davis…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
Nathaniel P. Bogers died on the 22d of April, 1892, leaving a will whicli bears date on December 26, 1885. His three sons were appointed executors of the will, and two of them, as such executors, brought this action against the other son, individually, and his former partner, to recover money loaned and advanced by the father in his lifetime to the firm which was composed of the two defendants. The amount claimed to be due from the defendants to the estate of the deceased was $50,000.
The defendants answered separately and both admitted the loan of money to them in some form and in some amount…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wetmore v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Grey v. . GreyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Van Kleeck v. Dutch ChurchNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Martin v. . HillenNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Canfield v. BostwickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Trounstine v. Bauer, Pogue & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Jerry Vogel Music Co. v. Forster Music Publisher, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- In re the Estate of MacnealNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
- Clark v. MeyerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- In re the Estate of AndrusNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.