Case Name: In re PEOPLE'S TRUST CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-12-24
Citations: 151 N.Y.S. 1139
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re PEOPLE’S TRUST CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 151
Pages: 1139–1140

Head Matter:
In re PEOPLE’S TRUST CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 24, 1914.)
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Kings County. Judicial settlement of the account of the People’s Trust Company, one of the executors of William C. Roberts, deceased. From part of a decree of the Kings County Surrogate’s Court settling the account (79 Misc. Rep. 595, 141 N. Y. Supp. 201), George S. Hice, one of the executors, appeals.
Reversed.
Edmund L. Mooney, of New York City (Frederick A. Card, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant. James M. Gray, of Brooklyn, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The evidence shows with requisite clearness that Roberts, fully competent to do so, executed the paper at its date, whereby the shares of stock were transferred to Hice upon a condition since performed. The instrument itself, bearing the genuine signature of Roberts, speaks strongly for its" own validity, while the testimony of Barnes, McNeil, and Baker forcefully confirm it. The statements of other witnesses, and, above all, the recital in the instrument of a note not then existing, which either then or later was drawn in a different form — the form in which Roberts and Hice desired it to be — and which was not changed to coincide with the recital earlier than January 18th, as shown by Hice's letter of that date and of the day following, bring to our attention matters of grave import, and have been studied and weighed. But the explanation by Hice in association with the transfer itself, and the supporting evidence of men whose testimony indicates fairness and moderation, leave the case free from the doubt that would require a rejection of the claim. The decree of the surrogate should be reversed, without costs, and judgment entered for the claimant, in accordance with the findings as amended in this court. The seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth findings of fact, and third conclusion of law, are reversed. Findings of fact proposed by George S. Hice, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 32, and conclusions of law Nos. 1 and 2, are found.