unjust rule in New York

1951Section 124 of the Decedent Estate Law was enacted to reverse the unjust rule of casting the entire burden of estate taxes upon the residuary legatees and to effect an equitable allocation of such burden, in the absence of a contrary mandate in the will (Matter of Dettmer, 179 Misc. 844, 847 ).

1930Moreover, it is somewhat difficult to see how or where under present conditions a distribution of the assets among policyholders, creditors or stockholders could be successfully carried out, except in Russia, from which the corporation is now excluded.” (Russian Reinsurance Co. v. Stoddard, 240 N. Y. 149 .) The Court of Appeals further stated: “If it is urged that by so doing we may enable the Soviet government in case of recognition by the State Department to assert here an unjust claim based upon confiscation, the answer is that the responsibility rests upon that branch of our government to

1897(Burke v. Witherbee, 98 N. Y. 562, 568 .) But if he should be subjected to this unjust test he should' not be condemned, for nothing was disclosed upon the trial that threw any new light upon the cause of the explosion.

1882The doctrine of Geib v. Topping ( 83 N. Y., 46 ), is quite applicable.

1825If an ejectment is brought by tenants in common, the plaintiff, may give in evidence the separate titles of the several-lessors to separate parts of the premises, and recover accordingly. ( 12 John. 185 .) But it would seem an unjust rule, which would suffer one tenant in common to admit away the rights of others.