In Re the Accounting of Vass

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Accounting of Vass

14 N.E.2d 73, 277 N.Y. 289, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 981

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 N.E.2d 73 (In Re the Accounting of Vass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Vass, 14 N.E.2d 73, 277 N.Y. 289, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 981 (N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Nothing in the order of the Supreme Court deprived the Surrogate’s Court of its jurisdiction to direct the respondent-administratrix to account to the appellant. While that order fixed the amount of the appellant’s lien and directed payment thereof out of the estate, the question remained whether and, if so, to what extent, the distributable estate was sufficient for that purpose after determination of the respective rights of the persons entitled to distribution. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the appellant’s objections on the ground that he had no interest in this proceeding.

The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed, with costs in all courts to the appellant, payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

Nothing in the order of the Supreme Court deprived the Surrogate’s Court of its jurisdiction to direct the respondent-administratrix to account to the appellant. While that order fixed the amount of the appellant’s lien and directed payment thereof out of the estate, the question remained whether and, if so, to what extent, the distributable estate was sufficient for that purpose after determination of the respective rights of the persons entitled to distribution. It was, therefore, error to dismiss the appellant’s objections on the ground that he had no interest in this proceeding.

The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed, with costs in all courts to the appellant, payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., taking no part.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.E.2d 73, 277 N.Y. 289, 1938 N.Y. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-vass-ny-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack