New York Supreme Court, 1888

Rogers v. New York Life Insurance & Trust Co.

Rogers v. New York Life Insurance & Trust Co.
New York Supreme Court · Decided May 17, 1888 · Ratt
1 N.Y.S. 271; 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 1010; 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1291 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Emmet di Robinson, for appellant. George H. Clark, for respondent.

Rogers v. New York Life Insurance & Trust Co.

Opinion of the Court

J?ratt, J.

The court at special term is correct in holding that no increased: responsibility devolved upon the trust company by the surrogate’s order that, the fund should remain in its custody. That order merely ratified and perpetuated a situation already created by agreement of the parties, and affords no reason for increasing the compensation of the depositories. If their agreed compensation was adequate during the life-time of George D; Bogers, no reason is perceived why it should be inadequate after the appointment of his administrator. The source of the trusteeship was changed, but the trustee was the same, and we think the estate should have the advantage of the-contract made while he was acting under his original authority. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.