grievous error in New York

1938Furthermore, the distinction between negligence and mere error of judgment must be borne in mind. ‘ Trustees acting honestly, with ordinary prudence and within the limits of their trust, are not liable for mere errors of judgment ’ (per Lindley, J., in Matter of Chapman, supra, at p. 776); a trustee should not be held liable ‘ for unfortunate results which he could not be expected to foresee and was powerless to prevent ’ (Ormiston v. Olcott, 84 N. Y. 339, at p. 347 ).” While the Clark case involved trustees, the law there stated is also applicable to a guardian.

1938Furthermore, the distinction between negligence and mere error of judgment must be borne in mind. ‘ Trustees acting honestly, with ordinary prudence and within the limits of their trust, are not liable for mere errors of judgment ’ (per Lindley, J., in Matter of Chapman [1896] 2 Ch. 763, at p. 776); a trustee should not be held liable ‘ for unfortunate results which he could not be expected to foresee and was powerless to prevent/ (Ormiston v. Olcott, 84 N. Y. 339, at p. 347 .) ” It is true that the securities retained by the life tenant are in a sense of a speculative nature, which is true to

1938Supp. 844 ; Matter of Mercantile Trust, 156 App. Div. 224 ; Matter of Chapman, [1896] 2 Ch. 763.) Self-evidently the purchase of a speculative stock by a trustee is one thing; the retention of such a stock awaiting the arrival of a favorable opportunity to sell, is quite another; the former would constitute negligence; the latter, regarded prospectively, might be prudent, although in retrospect it might seem to have been a grievous error.

1938(Matter of Weston, 91 N. Y. 502 ; Matter of Mercantile Trust Co., 156 App. Div. 224 ; Matter of Clark, 257 N. Y. 132 .) In Matter of Clark the court stated (at p. 136): “ Self-evidently the purchase of a speculative stock by a trustee is one thing; the retention of such a stock awaiting the arrival of a favorable opportunity to sell, is quite another; the former would constitute negligence; the latter, regarded prospectively, might be prudent, although in retrospect it might seem to have been a grievous error.

1938(Mertz v. Guaranty Trust Co., 247 N. Y. 137, 144 ; Matter of Clark , 257 id. 132, 136, 137 .) ” In that case the court also distinguishes between the facilities of the executor as a bank and of an individual in these words (p. 269): “ Nevertheless, a bank has certain advantages over an individual in determining the wisdom of retaining or disposing of securities belonging to an estate.

1936(Mertz v. Guaranty Trust Co., 247 N. Y. 137, 144 ; Matter of Clark , 257 id. 132, 136, 137 .) In the instant case there has been a prior accounting, in which these securities were listed, with a notation that the executor had been unable to find a market for them.

1980It is a fundamental principle of our system of criminal justice that the record be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant when ruling on a request to charge (People v Steele, 26 NY2d 526, 529 ).

1980It is a fundamental principle of our system of criminal justice that the record be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant when ruling on a request to charge ( People v Steele , 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529 ).

1938(Matter of Weston, 91 N. Y. 502 ; Matter of Mercantile Trust Co., 156 App. Div. 224 ; Matter of Clark, 257 N. Y. 132 .) In Matter of Clark the court stated (at p. 136): “ Self-evidently the purchase of a speculative stock by a trustee is one thing; the retention of such a stock awaiting the arrival of a favorable opportunity to sell, is quite another; the former would constitute negligence; the latter, regarded prospectively, might be prudent, although in retrospect it might seem to have been a grievous error.

1938(Matter of Weston, 91 N. Y. 502 ; Matter of Mercantile Trust Co., 156 App. Div. 224 ; Matter of Clark, 257 N. Y. 132 .) In Matter of Clark the court stated (at p. 136): “ Self-evidently the purchase of a speculative stock by a trustee is one thing; the retention of such a stock awaiting the arrival of a favorable opportunity to sell, is quite another; the former would constitute negligence; the latter, regarded prospectively, might be prudent, although in retrospect it might seem to have been a grievous error.

1900(People v. Conroy, 151 N. Y. 543, 547 .) “As the right of review is absolute, so must be also the right to have a complete and accurate statement of the matters determined against a party.” (Gleason v. Smith, 34 Hun, 547 .) While the statute now provides that a case must be made and *102 settled upon an appeal to this court from a judgment of death, it does not provide any method of reviewing the action of the justice settling the case even for the most grievous error.