Case Name: In the Matter of the Petition of Elizabeth Ausdem Bruch and Dorothy Hornby, Petitioners, Respondents, to Compel A. A. Potter, as Executor, etc., of Lora Hastings, Deceased, to Render and Settle the Account of the Said Lora Hastings, as Administratrix, etc., of Robert Hastings, Deceased, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1938-11-23
Citations: 255 A.D. 913
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Petition of Elizabeth Ausdem Bruch and Dorothy Hornby, Petitioners, Respondents, to Compel A. A. Potter, as Executor, etc., of Lora Hastings, Deceased, to Render and Settle the Account of the Said Lora Hastings, as Administratrix, etc., of Robert Hastings, Deceased, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 255
Pages: 913–916

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Petition of Elizabeth Ausdem Bruch and Dorothy Hornby, Petitioners, Respondents, to Compel A. A. Potter, as Executor, etc., of Lora Hastings, Deceased, to Render and Settle the Account of the Said Lora Hastings, as Administratrix, etc., of Robert Hastings, Deceased, Appellant.

Opinion:
Hill, P. J., Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes, J., dissents, with an opinion; McNamee, J., dissents, on the ground that the letter to Lora Hastings' attorneys was indefinite, and was based upon " some agreement " not stated and, therefore, the content of the agreement was a question of fact to be proved, and evidently the assignments were only steps in carrying out an undisclosed and underlying agreement. The decree is based on an agreement as found by the surrogate. I do not think the question of parol evidence is involved; neither do I believe the doctrine of fiduciary relation or dominating personality is in question. There appears to be no question of dominating influence.