Case ID: nys_147/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(162 App. Div. 330)
    In re WOOLLEY. Appeal of VAN SICLEN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    May 8, 1914.)
    1. Trusts (§ 311)—Accounting—Payments.
    A payment of a tax not made directly by a trustee but by Ms attorney may be regarded as a payment by the trustee in proceedings for the settlement of his accounts.
    [Ed. Note.—For .other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. § 430; Dec. Dig. § 311.*]
    2. Trusts (§ 330*)—Accounting—Costs.
    Costs on a settlement of the accounts of a. trustee should be decreed as payable to the parties and not to their attorneys.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trusts, Cent. Dig. §§ 491-493; Dec. Dig. § 330.*]
    Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Queens County.
    In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Daniel S. Woolley, as trustee, etc., of William H. Van Siclen, deceased. From a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Elizabeth W. Van Siclen, individually and as trustee, appeals.
    Modified and affirmed.
    
      Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ.
    I. Balch Louis, of New York City, for appellant.
    Floyd Martin Sheffield, of New York City, for respondent Daniel S. Woolley.
    George W. Reiff, of Brooklyn, for respondents Emma Sheffield, Eleanor Woolley, and Sarah Van Siclen.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § NUMBsu-in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The objections are to two items, one of $8.58 for certain petty disbursements sufficiently specified, and the other of $50 paid as the tax upon certain mortgages. The ground of the objections 'is that the items were “not properly chargeable ágainst this estate at this time.” There is nothing to indicate any basis for this objection as to the first item of $8.58.

The avowed ground of the objection as to the second item is that it appears the $50 was paid, not directly by the trustee, but by his attorneys. We think it may be regarded as a payment by the trustee.

The costs should be cut down. The item of $70 awarded as costs where there is a contest should be reduced to $25. Matter of Hogarty, 62 App. Div. 79, 87, 70 N. Y. Supp. 839. The item of $40 for preparing the account, and the item of $20 for preparing for the hearing, should each be reduced one-half, and the costs should be decreed as payable to the trustee, not to his attorneys. Matter of Wright, 121 App. Div. 581, 106 N. Y. Supp. 369.

The decree is modified as indicated in this opinion, and as so modified is affirmed, without costs.