Case Name: Charles Raht, Executor, etc., v. Henry Y. Attrill, et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-06-28
Citations: 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 720
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Raht, Executor, etc., v. Henry Y. Attrill, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 24
Pages: 720–720

Head Matter:
Charles Raht, Executor, etc., v. Henry Y. Attrill, et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed June 28, 1889).
Referee—When proofs taken before, opened to permit proof of claim.
An application made to open the proofs taken before a referee, and permit the proof of a claim manifestly honest, and which was inadvertently omitted upon the hearing, should be granted.
Appeal from an order made at special term confirming the report of a referee, and directing the payment to Collis P. Huntington, of money advanced by him to the reorganization committee of the Rockaway Beach Improvement Co.
Lewis Sanders, for H. H. Chittenden and in person Dixon, Williams and Ashley, for W. B. Stevens and Globe National Bank; Thomas M. Wheeler, for Frederick Taylor; B. F. Tracy, for C. P. Huntington.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
The order from which this appeal is taken is so obviously just that there would seem to be no legal impediment in the way of its affirmance.
After 'C. P. Huntington had proved his large claim before the referee appointed to receive the same he and his lawyers ascertained that • they had omitted to prove three certificates showing an advance of $4,000 to the re-organization trustees. Such omission was plainly inadvertent, and the claim manifested by the certificates was as plainly honest.
Thereupon an application was made and granted to open the proofs and permit proof of the claim to be made, which was done. Subsequently the report of the referee in relation to the certificates was confirmed, and the claim was allowed.
It is unnecessary to go over the case, and we find no violation of legal principles in making the order. Neither do we find any violation of the stipulations entered into by the counsel of Huntington, and if the order relieves him in any way from the effect of such stipulations it is in the interest of justice, and should be affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concur.