In re Schrauth
This text of 249 A.D. 847 (In re Schrauth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
249 A.D. 847, 292 N.Y.S. 925, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schrauth-nyappdiv-1937.