Nunnold v. Bluntach

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SPRING and ROBSON, JJ., dissent upor the grounds: (1) That the referee erred in hold ing that the decree of the Surrogate’s Court conclusively established that there was an over payment to Helena Nunnold; (2) that the ref eree erred in not allowing to the defendants in terest on the $5,000 loan mentioned in the de cisión; (3) that on the merits the plaintiff wa not entitled to recover.