Nunnold v. Bluntach

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 ctinclu'sively established that .there was an over-payment to Helena Hunnold.3. 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.