Case Name: SAMUEL H. HURD, Receiver, etc., of the Third Avenue Savings Bank, Appellant, v. PETER WARREN, Administrator, and ELIZA LACEY, Administratrix of JOHN LACEY, Deceased, and NICHOLAS QUACKENBOSS, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1879-01
Citations: 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 622
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAMUEL H. HURD, Receiver, etc., of the Third Avenue Savings Bank, Appellant, v. PETER WARREN, Administrator, and ELIZA LACEY, Administratrix of JOHN LACEY, Deceased, and NICHOLAS QUACKENBOSS, Respondents.
Judges: Beady J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 23
Pages: 622–624

Head Matter:
SAMUEL H. HURD, Receiver, etc., of the Third Avenue Savings Bank, Appellant, v. PETER WARREN, Administrator, and ELIZA LACEY, Administratrix of JOHN LACEY, Deceased, and NICHOLAS QUACKENBOSS, Respondents.
Surrogate of Mem York — allowances undei' chapter 359 of 1870 — subject to the limitation of the Code, § 309.
The surrogate of New York, in granting allowances in lieu of costs, under section 9 of chapter 359 of 1870, is subject to the limitation imposed by section 309 of the Code, and can in no case make an allowance exceeding $2,000 to all the parties or five per cent upon the amount recovered, or the claim or subject-matter involved.
Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of New York, 'directing the appellant, as receiver of the Third Avenue Savings Bank, “ to pay to N. Quackenboss, Esq., counsel for the respondents, out of the funds in his hands as such receiver, $275 in lieu of costs.” The receiver had made a claim against the estate, which had been .referred to an auditor, and by him rejected as barred by the short statute of limitation.
F. Smith, for the appellant.
II. Quackenboss, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Davis, P. J.:
This court has already held that the surrogate's power to make allowances is subject to the limitations imposed by section 309 of the Code, and can in no case exceed $2,000 to all the parties. (Down v. McGourkey, 15 Hun, 444.) It is subject, also, to the limitation of five per cent upon the amount recovered, or claim or subject-matter involved. The whole amount of the claim was $3,250 in this case, on which five per cent is $162.50. The surrogate allowed $275; that allowance must be reduced to $162.50, and the order should be modified by making such reduction and affirmed as modified.
Beady J., concurred.