Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Miller 122 N.Y.S. 1136

← Cases

In re Miller

122 N.Y.S. 1136 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1910-04-22 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1136
In re MILLER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 22, 1910.)

Headnote

Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Kings County. Judicial settlement of the account of Theodore F. Miller and another, as executors of the will of Mary E. Truslow, deceased, of her acts and proceedings as executrix of the will of Stephen H. Famham, deceased. From a decree of the Surrogate’s-
p. 1137
Court (64 Miso. Rep. 232, 119 N. Y. Supp. 52 ), Mary E. Truslow and others appeal.
Modified and affirmed.
William N. Dykman (George P. Fort, on the brief), for appellants Miller and Clark.
Henry W. Jessup, for appellant Truslow.
Charles H. Studin and William Reeda, for appellants and respondents.
Levi G. Farnham and others.
James C. Church, for respondent Stephen H. Farnham.

Mrs. Farnham received the United States bonds on February 28, 1885, at $48,650. They were called and paid in 1908, presumably at par. Hence Mrs. Farnham held them for some 23 years, and during that time received from them in actual income 2is/ie per cent., or $1,125 per annum, to which she was entitled, and it was her duty to invest for purposes of the sinking fund from the nominal income l2/ie per cent., or $475 per annum. Hence her actual income from the bonds for the four years succeeding her husband’s death, was $4,500, and there was due the sinking fund for such time $1,900. Hence the account for the four years should be as follows:

Income from United States bonds.......... § 4,500 00
Income from other sources.................. 7,430 54
Total ......................................?11,930 54
Income to which she was entitled.......... 20,000 00
Due her from principal...................... 8,069 46
Allowed by the surrogate.................... 7,469 46
Which should be increased by the amount of ........................................... 600 00

Hence the decree should be modified, by allowing her from the principal the sum of $8,069.46, instead of $7,469.46, and as so modified, it should be affirmed, without costs. The other items involved in the appeal have been examined, with the conclusion that proper disposition thereof was made by the surrogate.