Majority
p. 370(Argued June 10, 1935; decided July 11, 1935.)
p. 371
Robert T. Headley for appellant.
Headnote
No competent evidence was introduced by the executor to substantiate the alleged loan. (Leask v. Hoagland, 205 N. Y. 171 ; Phillips v. McCombs, 53 N. Y. 494 ; Lowery v. Erskine, 113 N. Y. 52 ; Griffin v. Train, 90 App. Div. 16 ; Marrow v. Moskowitz, 225 N. Y. 219 ; Gorton v. Lane, 208 App. Div. 833 ; Hutson v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 118 Mise. Rep. 795; Sumner v. Sumner, 128 Mise. Rep. 404; 221 App. Div. 760 ; Matter of Wendell, 121 Mise. Rep. 569; Flannery v. Van Tassel, 127 N. Y. 631 ; Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630 ; Slevin v. Wallace, 64 Hun, 288 ; 144 N. Y. 635 ; Linden v. Thieriot, 96 App. Div. 256 ; Gans v. Wormser, 83 App. Div. 505 ; Stickney v. Billings, 30 Hun, 304 ; Trim?ner v. Trimmer, 13 Hun, 182 .) The court erred in allowing interest on said alleged loan and offset. {Matter of Socolow v. Murphy, 219 App. Div. 184 .)Paul Folger for respondents.
The testimony introduced substantiates the findings of the Surrogate and the Appellate Division. (Matter of James, 148 Mise. Rep. 124.)
No error appears in this record, except the inclusion of interest. The evidence sustains an advancement or ademption but not the theory of a loan.
p. 372
Therefore, interest should not have been included. (Cole v. Andrews, 83 App. Div. 285 ; affd., 176 N. Y. 374 .)
The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.
Ordered accordingly.
Cases cited
- Leask v. Hoagland 205 N. Y. 171 p. 371
- Phillips v. McCombs 53 N. Y. 494 p. 371
- Lowery v. Erskine 113 N. Y. 52 p. 371
- Flannery v. Van Tassel 127 N. Y. 631 p. 371
- Truax v. Slater 86 N. Y. 630 p. 371
- Linden v. Thieriot 96 App. Div. 256 p. 371
- Cole v. Andrews 83 App. Div. 285 p. 372
- Cole v. Andrews 176 N. Y. 374 p. 372