Case Name: MACKAY v. DENNINGTON
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-12-14
Citations: 31 N.Y.S. 716
Docket Number: 
Parties: MACKAY v. DENNINGTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 31
Pages: 716–719

Head Matter:
(82 Hun, 509.)
MACKAY v. DENNINGTON.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
December 14, 1894.)
Judgment—Motion to Correct.
Where there is no inconsistency between the interlocutory and final judgments, and no mistake therein, a motion to correct the final judgment will not lie; but the decision embodied therein can be reviewed only on appeal.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Donald Mackay, as executor of Elizabeth R B. King, against Rowland B. Dennington, as administrator with the will annexed of Jane E. Jessup, impleaded with others. From an order denying a motion to correct the final judgment defendant Rowland B. Dennington appeals.
Affirmed.
Gilbert W. Bowne died November 27, 1853, leaving a will, which was duly probated, by which certain trustees, therein appointed, were directed to pay the gross income on $20,000 to Jane E. Jessup during her life; but instead of obeying such direction they deducted the taxes assessed on the sum invested, and paid to her the gross income, less such taxes. An action was brought, in which it was, by an interlocutory judgment entered February 16, 1872, adjudged, among other things: “(3) That the defendant Jane E. Jessup was and is entitled to the gross income of the $20,000 directed by the will of Gilbert W. Bowne to be invested for her, free and clear of any and all deductions or charges for taxes paid or to be paid on the principal sum invested or to be invested. * * - (8) And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Philo T. Buggies ascertain and report how much or what amount is due and owing to the said Jane E. Jessup, and ought to be paid to her by the said trustees, for or on account of deductions which they have made from her annuity, for or on account of taxes on the principal sum or investment which has produced or is producing such annuity.” July 23, 1881, Philo T. Buggies, the referee appointed by the interlocutory judgment. filed his report, of which, so far as it relates to the rights of Jane E. Jessup, the following is a copy: “Twenty-Eighth. I further report that, pursuant to the directions contained in said interlocutory decree, I have taken an account of the amount due and owing to the defendant Jane E. Jessup, and which ought to be paid to her by the said trustees for or on account of deductions they have made from her annuity for or on account of taxes on the principal sum or investment which has produced or is producing such annuity, and find and report that the aggregate sum so deducted from her annuity for or on account of taxes on the principal sum or investment is the sum of $6,265.20. Such account, showing the particulars of such deductions, is hereto annexed, and marked ‘Schedule K.’ Such schedule shows also the amount of interest accrued on the several sums so deducted from said annuity for taxes to .Time 2, 1881, amounting to $7,298.15.” •
Statement showing payments for taxes (exclusive of income tax) charged to account of Jane E. Jessup (and the $20,000 trust fund), with interest computed from date of payment to January 1, 1880, at 7 per cent., and from January 1, 1880, to June 2, 18S1, at 6 per cent.
Total interest on payments...... $7,298 15
Afterwards- an application was made on the interlocutory judgment, the report of the referee, and the exception thereto, for a final judgment, and, after hearing counsel for all of the litigants, it was, by a final judgment entered July 3, 1894, among other things, adjudged as follows: “It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said report of Philo T. Iluggles be, and the same is hereby, ratified and confirmed, and that all the exceptions to said report by any of the defendants be, and the same are hereby, over ruled. * * * And it having been ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the interlocutory judgment herein entered on the 16th day of February, 1872, that the said Philo T. Ituggles, the referee, ascertain and report how much or what amount is due and owing to the said Jane E. Jessup, and ought to be paid to-her by the said trustees, for or on account of deductions which they had made from her annuity for or on account of taxes on the principal sum or investment which has produced or was producing such annuity; and it appearing by the said report of the referee, bearing date the 1st day of July, 1881, that the amount due and owing to the defendant Jane E. Jessup, and which ought to be paid to her by the said trustees, for or on account of deductions they had made from her annuity for or on account of taxes on the principal sum or investment which has produced or was producing said annuity, that the said aggregate sum so deducted from the annuity was six thousand two hundred and sixty-five dollars and twenty cents: It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendant Rowland B. Bennington, as administrator with the will annexed of Jane E. Jessup, is entitled to recover, and that he do recover, from the estate of Gilbert W. Bowne the said sums so deducted for taxes without interest, and that the same be paid to him by the United States Trust Company of New York, the substituted trustee, out of the principal of said trust fund of twenty thousand dollars, or out of any accumulated interest thereon, held or received by said company. * * * And it also further appearing that the said Jane E. Jessup died in the city of Brooklyn on the 13th day of December, 1886, without issue”, leaving a last will, which was duly admitted to probate by the surrogate of the county of Kings, and the executor therein named died, after-having qualified as such, and Rowland B. Bennington was appointed administrator with the will annexed of the said Jane E. Jessup; and it also further-appearing that during the lifetime of the said Jane E. Jessup, by an order made by the supreme court, at a special term thereof, on the 23d day of November, 1886, the United States Trust Company of New York was appointed1 trustee in the place and stead of Harmanus B. Duryea and John Beveridge, deceased, the latter the surviving trustee of and under the will of Gilbert W. Bowne, deceased, of the said trust fund of twenty thousand dollars for the said Jane E. Jessup.” In June, 1891, the administrator of Jane E. Jessup moved on the interlocutory judgment, the report of the referee, and the final judgment at special term for an order that the final judgment be corrected so that the representative of Jane E. Jessup should be adjudged entitled to recover, in addition to the §6,265.20, the amount deducted for taxes, the amount (§7,298.15) of the interest on the sums paid for taxes, as shown by the report of the referee. This motion was denied, and the administrator of Jane E. Jessup appeals.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.
E. T. Rice, for appellant.
Joshua M. Van Cott, for respondents.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
It is not adjudged by the interlocutory judgment that Jane E. Jessup was entitled to recover interest on the amounts paid by the trustees for taxes on the trust fund and deducted from the annual payments made to her. That question was left for determination on the coming in of the report. The referee had no authority to determine any question of law, and he did not assume to decide that Miss Jessup was entitled to interest on the sums paid for taxes. He simply reported, the sums paid, the dates when paid, the interest on these sums, and left it with the court to determine by the final judgment whether interest should or should not be allowed. By the final judgment it is determined that the representative of Miss Jessup is not entitled to interest on these sums. There is no inconsistency between the interlocutory and final judgments, and there ia no mistake which can be corrected on motion. The only way that the decision of the special term, embodied in the final judgment, can be reviewed, is by an appeal from that judgment. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.