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.
Robert Abercrombie, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Charles Holder, Respondent, 1875 — 63 N.Y. 628 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Robert Abercrombie, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Charles Holder, Respondent
63 N.Y. 628·New York Court of Appeals·1875·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
Robert Abercrombie, Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Charles Holder, Respondent.
(Submitted November, 19, 1875;
decided November 30, 1875.)
This was an appeal from a judgment of General Term affirming a surrogate’s decree settling the account of plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Henry Holder.
The account and objections thereto were referred to an auditor. One item of credit in the account was $794.70, the amount of an account for groceries sold and moneys lent by plaintiff to deceased in his lifetime. The auditor filed a report allowing $418.89 of this item. In the testimony returned by the auditor appeared evidence tending to show that there was a settlement after a portion of the account had accrued between plaintiff and deceased. On motion to confirm the report the surrogate ordered the auditor to make a further report finding as to whether there was such a settlement; if so, how much of said item was extinguished by it. The auditor made such report finding that there was a settlement at a date specified, and that all of said item previous to that date was then paid, settled and extinguished. The surrogate, upon the coming in of this report, allowed $170.09, that being the portion of the account accruing after the date of the settlement, less payment made after that time. Held, that the surrogate had ample authority to direct the additional report, it being simply to supply an accidental omission; that the correction was properly made by the auditor on the testimony before him ; and that it was not necessary for him to have a further hearing. Other questions were disposed of on the evidence.
Wm. F. Purdy for the appellant.
L. T. Yale for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Hiller, J.,]
Hiller, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.