New York Court of Appeals, 1912

In re the Accounting of Lowe

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 8, 1912 · Cullen, Haight, Vann, Bartlett, Hiscocic, Collin, Chase, McLennan

99 N.E. 722; 206 N.Y. 671; 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 1072 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Friedrichs v. Friedrichs (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
Succession of Sauvage (La. 1916)
In re Estate of Blank (Kan. 1958)
In re the Construction of the Will of Lutz (New York Surrogate's Court 1952)
Boulton v. Clough (N.H. 1951)
In re the Will of Hohn (New York Surrogate's Court 1943)
Equitable Trust Co. v. Clavey (Court of Chancery of Delaware 1941)
In re the Estate of Johnson (New York Surrogate's Court 1938)
Shaffer v. Galbreath (Tuscarawas County Probate Court 1938)
In re the Accounting of Ruprecht (N.Y. 1937)
In re the Estate of Rothschild (New York Surrogate's Court 1937)
Murphy v. Murphy (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1935)
In re the Estate of Frey (New York Surrogate's Court 1935)
In re the Estate of Whitford (New York Surrogate's Court 1933)
In re the Estate of Bruns (New York Surrogate's Court 1932)
In re the Estate of Winburn (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
Central Union Trust Co. v. Flint (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1921)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We concur in the opinion of Spring, J., below, holding that the second provision of the will of Sarah J. Clement, deceased, in which she gave, devised and bequeathed to her daughter, Helen Springer, her printing office and bindery, together with all presses, bindery machinery, type, paper on hand, office furniture and equipment of every nature connected with said business, was intended to include the printing business carried on by the decedent in her lifetime, and that it comprises the bills receivable and money deposited in bank to the credit of the business. But we think that, in giving to her daughter the business she intended that she should assume and pay the accounts payable amounting to the sum of $7,450.63.

The order of the Appellate Division, therefore, should be modified so as to charge the daughter with the amount of such bills, and the decree as so modified should be affirmed, without costs in this court to either party.

Cullen, Ch. J., Haight,' Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscocic and Collin, JJ., concur; Chase, J., dissents on opinion of McLennan, P. J., below.

Ordered accordingly.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.