Legal Opinion

Dime Sav. Bank v. Pettit

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1899Published

Action by the Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn against John Pettit and others." Motion by referee for extra compensation.

1Opinion of the CourtMcADAM, J.

The referee is not entitled, under section 3297 of the Code, to additional compensation on a sale of real estate on foreclosure unless he has actually received and is accountable for $10,000 or more in cash. Hosmer v. Gans, 14 Misc. Rep. 229, 35 N. Y. Supp. 471; Insurance Co. v. Bendheim (May 20, 1898) 59 N. Y. Supp. 793. In this case the property was sold for $110,000, and bought in by the plaintiff, leaving a deficiency of. about $13,000. The plaintiff waived the payment of the 10 per cent., so that the referee has re-' ceived nothing. Clearly, extra compensation ■ cannot be demanded here.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hosmer v. GanoNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. BendheimNew York Supreme Court · 1898

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

Powered by the Exa API