In re the Accounting of Liebschutz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Accounting of Liebschutz

1 A.D.2d 756, 147 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 29, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 756 (In re the Accounting of Liebschutz) 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.

Bluebook

In re the Accounting of Liebschutz, 1 A.D.2d 756, 147 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Appellants, being persons interested in the estate of Harry Klonick, deceased, collaterally attack a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, which directed his executor to convey real property within the jurisdiction of that court. Under the governing California law, it was unnecessary that appellants be made formal parties to the action terminating in that judgment (Cal. Probate Code, § 573; McCaughey v. Lyall, 152 Cal. 615, affd. 224 U. S. 558; McNeil v. Dow, 89 Cal. App. 2d 370). The executor represented their interest. Neither was appellants’ consent to the conveyance necessary (Estate of Kennedy, 87 Cal. App. 2d 795). The constitutionality of the California procedure is settled (McCaughey v. Lyall, supra), and the judgment having been obtained in compliance therewith, it is entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this State. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Monroe Surrogate’s Court dismissing a claim against the estate of decedent.) Present ■— McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See post, p. 798.]

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

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Appellants, being persons interested in the estate of Harry Klonick, deceased, collaterally attack a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California, which directed his executor to convey real property within the jurisdiction of that court. Under the governing California law, it was unnecessary that appellants be made formal parties to the action terminating in that judgment (Cal. Probate Code, § 573; McCaughey v. Lyall, 152 Cal. 615, affd. 224 U. S. 558; McNeil v. Dow, 89 Cal. App. 2d 370). The executor represented their interest. Neither was appellants’ consent to the conveyance necessary (Estate of Kennedy, 87 Cal. App. 2d 795). The constitutionality of the California procedure is settled (McCaughey v. Lyall, supra), and the judgment having been obtained in compliance therewith, it is entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of this State. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Monroe Surrogate’s Court dismissing a claim against the estate of decedent.) Present ■— McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ. [See post, p. 798.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 756, 147 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-liebschutz-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack