Stevens v. Melcher

See memorandum on settlement of order.

Memorandum for s> ttlemeiit < f order.— First. A reference will not be ordered as to insurance premiums, as those only can be allowed which the record before us shows were paid; second, as to such amounts we understand Mr. Zabriskie’s statement to be correct; third, in respect to the $90,000, the order will be in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Hoadley’s proposed order; fourth, adopting such course as to the $90,000, there would seem to be no occasion for striking out from the adjudication designated tenth “that the said $100,000 and interest thereon were paid on the 6th day of March, 1894,” but it should be modified by adjudging that said legacy was not fully paid on the 6th day of March, 1894.