Case ID: ad_8/html/0298-01.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

In the Matter of the Probate of the Paper Propounded as the Last Will and Testament of Nicholas Seagrist, Deceased. Francis S. K. Seagrist and Theresa Seagrist, Appellants; Francis W. Seagrist, Jr., and Others, Respondents.
    
      Costs — the charging of the costs of an appeal upon contestants personally does not affect the costs in the Surrogates Court.
    
    The fact that the Appellate Division, upon an appeal from a surrogate’s decree, charges the costs of the appeal upon the contestants personally, affords no reason why the surrogate should change his original award of costs and direct that the costs in his court should also he charged against the contestants personally.
    Appeal by Francis S. K. Seagrist and another from an order of the Surrogate’s Court in the county of Bew York, entered in the office of said Surrogate’s Court on the 22d day of May, 1896, denying their motion made to amend a decree and charge the costs of probate proceeding against the contestants personally.
    
      Edward W. S. Johnston and George H. Taylor, Jr., for the appellants.
    
      Joseph H. Hayes, and Edward S. Clinch, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam :

Upon making the original decree which was appealed from, the surrogate.exercised his discretion as to the award of costs in the manner which, at that time, seemed to him just. The order of the Appellate Division made upon the appeal was not intended to affect the award of costs made by the surrogate, but applied only to the costs of the appeal. It did not follow, because the Appellate Division awarded costs against the contestants personally upon the appeal, that they should personally be charged with the costs of the original contest in the Surrogate’s Court. The direction of the Appellate Division with regard to costs of the appeal had no effect, therefore, upon the decree of the surrogate awarding costs, which stood as effectual unless it was reversed or modified upon the appeal. The fact that the Appellate Division had awarded costs of the appeal against the contestants personally afforded no reason why the surrogate should change his original award. Ho other reason was suggested, and, therefore, the order appealed from was proper, and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present—Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.