Majority
p. 554In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Mary Rowe, as Administratrix of the Estate of William Rowe, Deceased. Mary L. Lott et al., Appellants; Bridget Langrick et al., Respondents. (Argued November 22, 1921; decided December 13, 1921.)
Headnote
Decedent’s estate — distribution — transfer tax — presumption of death —former adjudication.Matter of Rowe, 197 App. Div. 449 , affirmed.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 1, 1921, which affirmed a decree of the Bronx County Surrogate’s Court directing distribution of the estate of William Rowe, deceased, bringing up for review two orders of said surrogate assessing a transfer tax upon said estate. Three questions were presented for determination: “ 1. Did Thomas Rowe die before or after his brother William Rowe? 2. Is Michael' Lynch, a nephew of William Rowe, alive or presumed to be dead? 3. Is the decree of the Surrogate’s Court, New York county, appointing an administrator of the estate of Thomas Rowe and fixing the date of his death as February 2, 1917, res adjudicóla and binding on the surrogate of Bronx county? ”
George W. Ellis for appellants.
Sidney Bossman and Julius M. Lowenstein for Bridget Langrick et al., respondents.
John Davis for Catherine M. Lynch et al., respondents;
John Boyle, Jr., for State Tax Commission, respondent.
p. 555
Edward B. Koch, special guardian for unknown persons, respondents.
Henry W. Unger and Samuel S. Winter for Conrad Hilbert, as administrator of the estate of Mary Rowe, deceased, respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.