In re Schrauth

249 A.D. 847, 292 N.Y.S. 925, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 1937·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Dutchess county unanimously affirmed, without costs. Mr. Haas was retained as attorney for the executors, and not as attorney for the estate. There can be no such retainer as attorney for an estate. There may be no substitution, however, of an attorney to replace Mr. Haas as attorney for the executrix except m a pending proceeding. The only proceeding pending at the time of the application was the one in which the widow sought to assert her right of election. She was represented by her own attorney in that matter. Mr. Haas purported to represent the estate and opposed her application. It would have been better if he had remained neutral and permitted some other attorney to represent the sons and daughters. However, it is now too late to make any direction in that connection. The court does not pass upon the right of the executrix to have her own attorney generally. Present — Laáansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

In re Schrauth, 249 A.D. 847, 292 N.Y.S. 925, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

249 A.D. 847 (In re Schrauth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Harris
21 Misc. 3d 239 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2008)
In re Hof
102 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Bloch v. Schragenheim
107 Misc. 2d 279 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1980)
In re the Accounting of Public Administrator of King County
2 Misc. 2d 65 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1956)