In re Scheidler's Estate

New York Supreme Court

In re Scheidler's Estate

27 N.Y.S. 7, 75 Hun 185, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 185, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 596

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 7 (In re Scheidler'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 Scheidler's Estate, 27 N.Y.S. 7, 75 Hun 185, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 185, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 596 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears that this will was admitted to probate on November 30, 1886, and that the administrator failed to account until compelled to do so by order of the surrogate, dated November 11, 1892. Upon such accounting, the administrator, if he had desired a construction of the will, could have had the proper parties brought in, and the will construed, and there was no necessity for the filing of a bill in the supreme court for that purpose, the evident object of which, in view of his delay and failure to serve the necessary parties, was to secure additional delay. Under these circumstances, we think the surrogate was entirely justified in directing payment of the legacy, notwithstanding the pendency of the action for the construction of the will; particularly as it appeared that the plaintiff had not taken any steps even to serve most of the defendants in.the action. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears that this will was admitted to probate on November 30, 1886, and that the administrator failed to account until compelled to do so by order of the surrogate, dated November 11, 1892. Upon such accounting, the administrator, if he had desired a construction of the will, could have had the proper parties brought in, and the will construed, and there was no necessity for the filing of a bill in the supreme court for that purpose, the evident object of which, in view of his delay and failure to serve the necessary parties, was to secure additional delay. Under these circumstances, we think the surrogate was entirely justified in directing payment of the legacy, notwithstanding the pendency of the action for the construction of the will; particularly as it appeared that the plaintiff had not taken any steps even to serve most of the defendants in.the action. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 7, 75 Hun 185, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 185, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scheidlers-estate-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack