Matter of Reynolds

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Jagnow

    148 Misc. 657 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1933)   Cited 11 times

    Had the State Tax Commission appealed from the orders in question upon grounds other than that now raised — i.e., the question of the rate of tax — the determination of that question in the original order would have been res judicata as to the commission. ( Matter of Wolfe, 137 N.Y. 205; Matter of Davis, 149 id. 539; Matter of Cook, 194 id. 400; Matter of Manning, 169 id. 449; Matter of Fletcher, 219 A.D. 5; Matter of Manville, 224 id. 820; Matter of Reynolds, 97 Misc. 555; Matter of Harkness, 134 id. 203; affd., 223 A.D. 880, appeal dismissed, 251 N.Y. 524; Matter of Kountze [Surrogate FOLEY, N.Y.L.J. Oct. 17, 1931]; Matter of Ginsburg [Surrogate HOWELL, unreported].) In Matter of Davis ( supra) the appeal was taken only from that portion of the order directing the collection of interest from the date of decedent's death.

  2. Matter of Sonnenburg

    133 Misc. 42 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1928)   Cited 5 times

    The respondent insists that if I find that the ownership in the appellant is not in fee simple absolute, the order must be affirmed because it is claimed that no other ground is urged in the notice of appeal. While there can be no doubt that the appellant is limited to a review upon the grounds set forth in the notice of appeal ( Matter of Cook, 194 N.Y. 400; Matter of Davis, 149 id. 539; Matter of Reynolds, 97 Misc. 555; Tax Law, § 232; Matter of Fletcher, 219 A.D. 5, 16), I deem its language to the effect that the tax assessed "is excessive and not in accordance with a proper construction of the will" sufficient to warrant consideration of his further contention made upon the oral argument. This was, that if the possible remaindermen ultimately received any part of the estate, the tax thereon would be payable then and not before.