(Argued June 10, 1935;
decided July 11, 1935.)
*371Robert T. Headley for appellant.
No competent evidence was introduced by the executor to substantiate the alleged loan. (Leask v. Hoagland, 205 N. Y. 171; Phillips v. McCombs, 53 N. Y. 494; Lowery v. Erskine, 113 N. Y. 52; Griffin v. Train, 90 App. Div. 16; Marrow v. Moskowitz, 225 N. Y. 219; Gorton v. Lane, 208 App. Div. 833; Hutson v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 118 Mise. Rep. 795; Sumner v. Sumner, 128 Mise. Rep. 404; 221 App. Div. 760; Matter of Wendell, 121 Mise. Rep. 569; Flannery v. Van Tassel, 127 N. Y. 631; Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630; Slevin v. Wallace, 64 Hun, 288; 144 N. Y. 635; Linden v. Thieriot, 96 App. Div. 256; Gans v. Wormser, 83 App. Div. 505; Stickney v. Billings, 30 Hun, 304; Trim?ner v. Trimmer, 13 Hun, 182.) The court erred in allowing interest on said alleged loan and offset. {Matter of Socolow v. Murphy, 219 App. Div. 184.)
Paul Folger for respondents.
The testimony introduced substantiates the findings of the Surrogate and the Appellate Division. (Matter of James, 148 Mise. Rep. 124.)
Per Curiam.
No error appears in this record, except the inclusion of interest. The evidence sustains an advancement or ademption but not the theory of a loan. *372Therefore, interest should not have been included. (Cole v. Andrews, 83 App. Div. 285; affd., 176 N. Y. 374.)
The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.
Ordered accordingly.