Opinion
June, 1910.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Spring and Robson, JJ., who dissented upon the grounds: 1. That the referee erred in holding that the decree of the Surrogate's Court conclusively established that there was an over-payment to Helena Nunnold. 2. That the referee erred in not allowing to the defendants interest on the $5,000 loan mentioned in the decision. 3. That on the merits the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.