From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baldwin v. Rice

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 6, 1906
76 N.E. 1088 (N.Y. 1906)

Opinion

Submitted January 8, 1906

Decided February 6, 1906

John Brooks Leavitt, Jared F. Harrison and Arthur B. Turnure for motion.

James Byrne and Charles A. Boston opposed.


In our disposition of the appeal in this case we did not misconceive the question involved, as is now contended by the learned counsel for the appellants with rather more heat than we think warranted.

We held, with the courts below, that the letters of administration were clearly ancillary in character, and that so considered they were void, as, in securing their issue, the appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. We add to the opinion already published ( 183 N.Y. 55) that the order directing the issue of letters contained provisions that made the letters limited and ancillary on their face. The motion for re-argument should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN and WERNER, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Baldwin v. Rice

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 6, 1906
76 N.E. 1088 (N.Y. 1906)
Case details for

Baldwin v. Rice

Case Details

Full title:ADELE BALDWIN et al., as Administrators of the Estate of ELIZABETH B…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 6, 1906

Citations

76 N.E. 1088 (N.Y. 1906)
184 N.Y. 523