
    Peter Dukelow, Resp’t, v. William Searles, Adm’r, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
    
    
      Filed October 21, 1892.)
    
    Decedents’ estates—Costs.
    A reduction of $17 on a claim of $196 against an estate, referred under the statute, is not such a material reduction as to justify an absolute denial of all liability of the estate for the claim, and costs are properly allowed in such a case against the administrator.
    Appeal by the defendant, William Searles, as administrator of the estate of Ann Searles, deceased, from an order of the special term made on the 2d day of November, 1891, entered in the Monroe county clerk’s office on the 3d day of November, 1891, confirming the report of a referee in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in a submission under the statute of a claim against the estate of the decedent and awarding costs to the plaintiff.
    
      W. H. Whiting, for app’lt; J. J. Snell, for resp’t.
   Macombeb, J.

—The claim made by the plaintiff against the estate of Ann Searles, the intestate, arose out of a bill for unpaid board, lodging and care at the plaintiff’s house from time to time between January 1, 1887, and July 4, 1889, being for fifty-one weeks in all, and found by the referee to be of the value of $3.50 per week and amounting to the sum of $178.50.

But the claim which was rendered by the plaintiff to the administrator was for the sum of $196; and hence the principal contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is, that costs should not have been awarded by the special term against the administrator. The question is, therefore, whether the payment of the claim was unreasonably resisted by the administrator. If it was, costs were properly awarded to the plaintiff under § 1836 of the Code of Civ. Pro., otherwise not. The only ground, for urging in the administrator’s behalf that he was justified in contesting the claim is the fact that the original claim, as presented, was reduced, by the findings of the referee, by the sum of $17.50. This, it seems to us, is not such a material reduction of the claim presented as to justify the administrator in the attitude which he took when the bill was first presented to him for payment. There was on his part an absolute' denial of all liability of his estate to pay the plaintiff, anything for the board, lodging and care which the plaintiff without being a member of the family of the deceased, had, with the knowledge of the defendant, bestowed, upon her.

The order appealed from should be affirmed.

Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Dwight, P. J., and Lewis, J., concur.  