In re Faulkner

7 Hill & Den. 181
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1845
StatusPublished

This text of 7 Hill & Den. 181 (In re Faulkner) 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 Faulkner, 7 Hill & Den. 181 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Opinion

[182]*182 By the Court,

Bronson, Ch. J.

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 then qualified, he was not executor at the time the money was received. (2 R. S. 71, §§ 15, 16; Thomas v. Cameron, 16 Wend. 579; 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 v. 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.

Motion granted.

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

Related

Thomas v. Cameron
16 Wend. 579 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
In re Stevenson
3 Paige Ch. 420 (New York Court of Chancery, 1831)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Hill & Den. 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-faulkner-nysupct-1845.