¶1The referee’s findings ai;e, in our judgment, supported by the evidence, and we see no reason for disturbing his report upon the facts. His conclusions of law substantially follow the opinion of this general term, upon the first appeal, and there is nothing in the case as now presented calling for a re-examination of the questions of law which were then discussed. We do not think that the transafctions between Mr. and Mrs. Barlow, proved by the new evidence adduced, upon the second and third trials, were inconsistent with the existence of an actual indebtedness upon the account Under consideration; nor do we think that this new evidence materially affected the conclusions originally arrived at. We think the case has now arrived at a stage when all the questions which have been so severely litigated in this court may be fully and appropriately presented to the court of last resort, and that there is nothing in the record which would justify us, in the light of these previous decisions, in again ordering a new trial. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
21 N.Y.S. 1122
Adams v. Olin
Decided December 16, 1892
New York Supreme Court · decided 1892-12-16
Proceeding by George N. Adams and Peter T. Barlow, executors of the will of Alice T. Barlow, deceased, against Stephen H. Olin and Peter T. Barlow, executors of the will of Samuel L. M. Barlow, deceased, for an accounting. From a judgment of the.special term affirming the report of the referee in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed. For former reports see 16 N. Y. Supp. 133, and 18 N. Y. Supp. 899.
Decided 1892-12-16