From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CLARK v. TYNG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1933
239 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Summary

In Clark v. Sewell, 3 Atk. 96, where the payment was postponed one month only after the testator's death, Lord Hardwicke said that that was a circumstance that the plaintiff had a right to lay hold of to take that out of the cases that had been deemed a satisfaction.

Summary of this case from Silvers v. Jones

Opinion

April, 1933.

Present — McAvoy, Martin, O'Malley and Townley, JJ.


Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion.


Summaries of

CLARK v. TYNG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1933
239 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

In Clark v. Sewell, 3 Atk. 96, where the payment was postponed one month only after the testator's death, Lord Hardwicke said that that was a circumstance that the plaintiff had a right to lay hold of to take that out of the cases that had been deemed a satisfaction.

Summary of this case from Silvers v. Jones
Case details for

CLARK v. TYNG

Case Details

Full title:MARY O. CLARK, Respondent, v. SEWELL T. TYNG, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1933

Citations

239 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Silvers v. Jones

The testatrix takes notice that this money was not in hand, and she knew at the time of making her will that…

Harris v. the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company

Any inferences as to that intention, from other general sources, substitute witnesses in court for the…