Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70
Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70
New York (State). Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Marcus Tullius Hun, Jerome B. Fisher, Austin B. Griffin
The book Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70 was written by author New York (State). Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Marcus Tullius Hun, Jerome B. Fisher, Austin B. Griffin Here you can read free online of Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70 book, rate and share your impressions in comments. If you don't know what to write, just answer the question: Why is Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70 a good or bad book?
What reading level is Reports of Cases Heard And Determined in the Appellate Division ..., volume 70 book?
To quickly assess the difficulty of the text, read a short excerpt:
Edd, that he could not maintain the action in the first capacity, as, if the stock belonged to his father's estate, it had concededly been properly distributed; That, as it did not appear that there were any creditors of his mother's estate or that there were any other persons who claimed to have derived any interest in the stock through her, his qualified .title as executor under his mother's will became merged in his beneficial interest as legatee under such will and that, if such stock belon...ged to his mother's estate, he would be entitled to it as an individual rather than as an executor; That the plaintiff, having consented to the distribution of the stock among his wife and three sisters, upon the theory that it constituted part of his father's estate, could not subsequently insist that the stock was a part of his mother's estate; That the decree discharging the executors and trustees was an adjudication that the division of the stock was proper and that such decree was binding upon the plaintiff in favor of the other legatees; That the contention that, at the time the stock was divided among the plaintiff's wife and his three sisters, he was ignorant of the facts which attended the issue of the additional stock was not supported by the facts found.
User Reviews: