Brown v. Martin's Executors

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brown v. Martin's Executors

1 N.J.L. 240

DecidedNovember 15, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 240 (Brown v. Martin's Executors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Martin's Executors, 1 N.J.L. 240 (N.J. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Kixsey, C. J.

It appears a plea was filed stating a deficiency of assets, and by consent the matter was referred to auditors. Against a tribunal erected by themselves, the executors go before the [208] Orphans’ Court aud procure their accounts to be settled in a different manner, without notice to the opposite party. Indeed, if Brown had been notified, I do not know that it would have been incumbent on him to have attended. The executors now hold up this collateral settlement in bar of what the auditors have done. It is not to be countenanced; the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kixsey, C. J.

It appears a plea was filed stating a deficiency of assets, and by consent the matter was referred to auditors. Against a tribunal erected by themselves, the executors go before the [208] Orphans’ Court aud procure their accounts to be settled in a different manner, without notice to the opposite party. Indeed, if Brown had been notified, I do not know that it would have been incumbent on him to have attended. The executors now hold up this collateral settlement in bar of what the auditors have done. It is not to be countenanced; the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J.L. 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-martins-executors-nj-1793.