In re Andrews

New York Court of Chancery

In re Andrews

1 Johns. Ch. 99, 1814 N.Y. LEXIS 209, 1814 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedJuly 25, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 1 Johns. Ch. 99 (In re Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Andrews, 1 Johns. Ch. 99, 1814 N.Y. LEXIS 209, 1814 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19 (N.Y. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

Though the guardian was, in this case, appointed by the surrogate, under the act of 1813, (N. R. Laws, vol. 1. 454.,) he is as much under the superintendance and control of this court, as if he had been appointed by it in the first instance. The power of the surrogate extends only to the appointment of the guardian; he has no general jurisdiction over him as trustee. That power remains unimpaired in this court, and every guardian, however appointed, is responsible here for his conduct, and may be removed for misbehaviour. It has repeatedly been declared, that a testamentary or statute guardian is as much under the superintendance of the court of chancery as the guardian in socage. (Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Wms. 704. Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 107. Rouch v. Garvar, 1 Ves. 160.) I shall, therefore, direct a reference to a master, to ascertain the truth of the allegations contained in the petition, and to report thereon.

Rule accordingly.

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

The Chancellor.

Though the guardian was, in this case, appointed by the surrogate, under the act of 1813, (N. R. Laws, vol. 1. 454.,) he is as much under the superintendance and control of this court, as if he had been appointed by it in the first instance. The power of the surrogate extends only to the appointment of the guardian; he has no general jurisdiction over him as trustee. That power remains unimpaired in this court, and every guardian, however appointed, is responsible here for his conduct, and may be removed for misbehaviour. It has repeatedly been declared, that a testamentary or statute guardian is as much under the superintendance of the court of chancery as the guardian in socage. (Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Wms. 704. Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 107. Rouch v. Garvar, 1 Ves. 160.) I shall, therefore, direct a reference to a master, to ascertain the truth of the allegations contained in the petition, and to report thereon.

Rule accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Johns. Ch. 99, 1814 N.Y. LEXIS 209, 1814 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andrews-nychanct-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack