In re the Estate of Browning

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Browning

172 Misc. 647, 15 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2460

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedNovember 1, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 Misc. 647 (In re the Estate of Browning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Browning, 172 Misc. 647, 15 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2460 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Delehanty, S.

The allegations of the petition, if true, establish that respondent Harry Hackman while an employee, agent and officer of Edbro Realty Co., Inc., a corporation wholly owned by deceased in his lifetime and by his estate after his death, secured secret commissions and gratuities from a third party doing business with Edbro. The petition alleges that said moneys were obtained by Harry Hackman in part directly and in part through the other respondent, his wife, Bernice Hackman. Bernice Hackman by her answer questions the jurisdiction of this court on the theory that the allegations of the petition at best assert a right in petitioner to the “ collection of a simple debt.” The law is otherwise. (Howe v. Savory, 51 N. Y. 631; Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R. R. Co., 52 Barb. 173, 181; Labinsks v. Holst, 84 N. Y. Supp. 991, 992 [not otherwise reported]; Restatement, Agency, § 388; 13 A. L. R. 907; 71 id. 933.) “ In all this class of cases, the question is * * * whether the agent has done his duty to his principal, and acted according to the trust reposed in him. If he has not, but through default or concealment, in either particular, has obtained a profit or advantage to himself, he cannot retain it; it belongs to his principal.” (Italics in original.) (Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R. R. Co., supra.) The court [648]*648accordingly holds that it has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding consisting as it does of “ money * * * or the proceeds or value thereof ” within the meaning of section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

The respondents have demanded trial by jury. An order framing the issues and a note of issue should, therefore, be filed. Proceed accordingly.

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

Delehanty, S.

The allegations of the petition, if true, establish that respondent Harry Hackman while an employee, agent and officer of Edbro Realty Co., Inc., a corporation wholly owned by deceased in his lifetime and by his estate after his death, secured secret commissions and gratuities from a third party doing business with Edbro. The petition alleges that said moneys were obtained by Harry Hackman in part directly and in part through the other respondent, his wife, Bernice Hackman. Bernice Hackman by her answer questions the jurisdiction of this court on the theory that the allegations of the petition at best assert a right in petitioner to the “ collection of a simple debt.” The law is otherwise. (Howe v. Savory, 51 N. Y. 631; Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R. R. Co., 52 Barb. 173, 181; Labinsks v. Holst, 84 N. Y. Supp. 991, 992 [not otherwise reported]; Restatement, Agency, § 388; 13 A. L. R. 907; 71 id. 933.) “ In all this class of cases, the question is * * * whether the agent has done his duty to his principal, and acted according to the trust reposed in him. If he has not, but through default or concealment, in either particular, has obtained a profit or advantage to himself, he cannot retain it; it belongs to his principal.” (Italics in original.) (Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R. R. Co., supra.) The court [648]*648accordingly holds that it has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding consisting as it does of “ money * * * or the proceeds or value thereof ” within the meaning of section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

The respondents have demanded trial by jury. An order framing the issues and a note of issue should, therefore, be filed. Proceed accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 Misc. 647, 15 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-browning-nysurct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack