Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of JULIA T. DICK et al., as Executrices of the Estate of WILLIAM DICK, Deceased, Appellants, against VINCENT B. MURPHY, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Per Curiam.

The order assessing the tax should have been framed in compliance with section 241 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60). Until it was so framed, the Comptroller was without authority to deposit any part of the tax in a trust company or savings bank to the credit of the estate. We do not now determine whether the appellant has a remedy by proceedings in the Court of Claims or whether additional legislation is necessary to make that remedy available. It is enough for present purposes to decide, as we do, that a successor Comptroller, the respondent in this proceeding, may not be compelled by mandamus to pay interest upon a fund which was never placed by his predecessor with a depositary where interest would be earned.

Upon the ground that mandamus will not lie, the order should be affirmed, without costs to either party.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur; KELLOGG, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF DICK v. MURPHY
(May 3, 1927)