In re Brien's Estate

New York Supreme Court

In re Brien's Estate

11 N.Y.S. 522, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 999, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211

DecidedOctober 24, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 522 (In re Brien's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brien's Estate, 11 N.Y.S. 522, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 999, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.

An examination of the papers seems to show that the action of the surrogate was eminently proper. Whatever the rights of the petitioner were as guardian, in the absence of an appointment, they ceased upon such appointment. The appellant asked for the appointment of a guardian, and the surrogate, upon ascertaining the relations of the petitioner to the property of the infant, refused to appoint her, but did appoint a trust company. We see no reason for interfering with this action. The petitioner had interests antagonistic to those of the infant. She was living in one of the houses of the infant, had but little property of her own, and evidently had hopes of being partially supported out of the property of the infant. This condition of affairs would undoubtedly have led to grave complications had she been appointed guardian, which should be avoided if possible. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

Van Brunt, P. J.

An examination of the papers seems to show that the action of the surrogate was eminently proper. Whatever the rights of the petitioner were as guardian, in the absence of an appointment, they ceased upon such appointment. The appellant asked for the appointment of a guardian, and the surrogate, upon ascertaining the relations of the petitioner to the property of the infant, refused to appoint her, but did appoint a trust company. We see no reason for interfering with this action. The petitioner had interests antagonistic to those of the infant. She was living in one of the houses of the infant, had but little property of her own, and evidently had hopes of being partially supported out of the property of the infant. This condition of affairs would undoubtedly have led to grave complications had she been appointed guardian, which should be avoided if possible. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 522, 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 999, 58 Hun 604, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-briens-estate-nysupct-1890.