Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Cumnock

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided August 12, 1932Published

1Opinion of the Court

Foley, S.

I hold that the services rendered to the decedent by the claimant, Dr. Norman E. Ditman, were gratuitous and without expectation of payment. They were rendered by the claimant because of his relationship to the decedent, as a brother-in-law, and because of his love and great affection for him. There is no evidence of an agreement, express or implied, that the claimant was to be compensated for his services. The testimony discloses that at no time in the past were bills ever sent by the claimant to the decedent for medical treatment, although he had attended the decedent on numerous…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robinson v. . MunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  2. In re the Estate of FloodNew York Surrogate's Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API