Opinion
November, 1914.
The decrees of the Surrogate's Court of Kings county are affirmed, with costs. We are constrained to hold that the stipulation, which shows that the appellant has recovered and returned to the estate the amount of the second mortgage investments, cannot be considered upon this appeal, because it appears that such recovery and restoration occurred after the accounting and after the decrees of the surrogate were entered. Jenks, P.J., Burr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.