Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Application of Edward L. Norton et al., as Administrators of the Estate of George F. Gilman, Deceased, Respondents, for Leave to Compromise a Claim Against the Estate. Caroline G. Redington, Appellant, 1904 — 178 N.Y. 606 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of Edward L. Norton et al., as Administrators of the Estate of George F. Gilman, Deceased, Respondents, for Leave to Compromise a Claim Against the Estate. Caroline G. Redington, Appellant
178 N.Y. 606·New York Court of Appeals·1904·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of Edward L. Norton et al., as Administrators of the Estate of George F. Gilman, Deceased, Respondents, for Leave to Compromise a Claim Against the Estate. Caroline G. Redington, Appellant.
Matter of Oilman, 92 App. Div. 462, affirmed.
(Argued April 26, 1904;
decided May 3, 1904.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 15, 1904, which affirmed an order of the New York County Surrogate’s Court permitting the compromise of a claim against the estate of George F. Gilman, deceased.
Ea/phael J. Moses for appellant.
John J. Crawford, Lincoln McCormack and T. S. Ormiston for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
We approve of the opinion helow in so far as it holds that the surrogate had jurisdiction to authorize the administrators to compromise the claim of Hall against the estate. As to the wisdom of authorizing a compromise that involves a discretion of the court below which we have no power to review.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Haight, Yann and Werner,' JJ. Not voting: O’Brien, J.