In Re Stewart
This text of 175 A. 360 (In Re Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Francis LeRoy Stewart died intestate leaving a six-year-old son, his only next of kin, now in the custody of his mother, the decedent's divorced wife. She applied for and was granted letters of administration by the surrogate of Somerset county. The decedent's father appealed to the orphans court claiming the right of administration as next of kin. The orphans court affirmed the decree of the surrogate and the father appealed to this court.
In view of the repeated adjudication, it is surprising that the action of the surrogate should be made a question. The father, it is true, was of the same degree of kinship to the decedent as was the decedent's infant son, and the Orphans Court act (Cum. Supp.Comp. Stat. p. 2609) requires that administration be granted to the next of kin, but the direction is limited to the next of kin who are distributees under the statute. The father has no interest in the estate; he is not a distributee and not within the privilege of the statute. The precise question was decided inIn re Alpaugh's Estate,
In the cases relied upon by the appellant, all holding that the statute must be strictly obeyed and that administration must go to the next of kin unless personally disqualified, it will be found that the right to administration by next of kin entitled to distribution was at stake:
In Donahay v. Hall,
In Sayre v. Sayre,
In Cramer v. Sharp, supra, the dispute was between sons and daughters of the intestate, next of kin and distributees, equally entitled to administration.
In In re Herrmann,
Another objection made is that no notice was given to the appellant of the intended application for letters of administration by the respondent as required by rules 1 and 2 of the Orphans Court act. While he was next of kin, he was not entitled under the statute to administer and consequently was not entitled to notice.
The decree below will be affirmed. *Page 259
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 A. 360, 117 N.J. Eq. 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stewart-njsuperctappdiv-1934.