93 N.Y.S. 557 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1905
The principal question raised by this appeal relates to the alleged error of the learned surrogate in permitting the administrator to
Upon the other questions involved the rule seems to he that where the administrator has made payments in the discharge of his duties, the burden of proof is upon the contestant tó show that they were an improper charge against the estate. (Matter of Frazer, 92 N. Y. 239, 247.) It cannot be said in the case now before us that the contestant has furnished evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of. honesty. The learned surrogate appears to have carefully considered the account, and to have made such readjustments as justice required, and with the exception of certain items of taxes, which respondent concedes were not properly, a charge upon the personal estate, the decree has properly disposed of the controversy.
The decree should be modified by striking out the erroneous items paid for taxes, and as thus modified should he affirmed, without costs.
Hirschberg, P. J., Jerks, Rich and Miller, JJi, concurred. '
Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county modified by striking out the deduction in the account for' the taxes and water rates of 1903, and as modified affirmed, without costs.