In re Faulkner

1 How. Pr. 207
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1845·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bronson, Chief Justice.

The statute directs that the trustees in making a distribution of the moneys in their hands “ shall first pay all debts that may be owing by the debtor as guardian, executor, administrator or trustee.” 2 R. S., 47, § 34. The objection urged against this claim is, that as Faulkner had not been qualified he was not executor at the time the money was received. 2 R. S., 71, § 15, 16, Thomas vs. Cameron ; 16 Wend., 579. In the matter of Stevenson, 3 Paige, 420. But the answer is, that when Faulkner qualified as executor, his authority related back, and legalized the payments which had previously been made to him. Priest vs. Watkins, 2 Hill, 225. He afterwards held the money, and it was a debt against him as executor. The claim to preference must be allowed.

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

In re Faulkner, 1 How. Pr. 207 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

1 How. Pr. 207 (In re Faulkner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ross v. Harden
10 Jones & S. 427 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1877)