In re the Estate of Doffy

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Doffy

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 240, 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 206

DecidedMarch 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 240 (In re the Estate of Doffy) 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 Doffy, 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 240, 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 206 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Rollins, S.

This is a proceeding wherein the petitioner, as the guardian of the two infant children of Mary C. Reilley, deceased, applies for an order directing the administratrix of this •estate to file an account The respondent accedes that prior to January 6, 1885, Mrs. Reilley, who was one of the daughters of this decedent, was a person interested in his estate; but by the answer of the administratrix, it appears that on that day she executed and delivered to her a release of her interest therein.

The execution and delivery of this release are not disputed, but tbe petitioner has filed an affidavit alleging that it was obtained by the fraud, coercion and undue influence of the respondent

The question whether the release is for this cause invalid, the surrogate has no jurisdiction to determine. But iu view of the sworn allegation of its invalidity, I must order an accounting (Fraenzmick agt. Miller, 5 Redf., 136; Harris agt. Ely, 25 N. Y., 138; Rieben agt. Hicks, 4 Bradf., 136; Estate of Andress Schmidt, surrogate’s decisions, Dec. 23, 1885).

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

Rollins, S.

This is a proceeding wherein the petitioner, as the guardian of the two infant children of Mary C. Reilley, deceased, applies for an order directing the administratrix of this •estate to file an account The respondent accedes that prior to January 6, 1885, Mrs. Reilley, who was one of the daughters of this decedent, was a person interested in his estate; but by the answer of the administratrix, it appears that on that day she executed and delivered to her a release of her interest therein.

The execution and delivery of this release are not disputed, but tbe petitioner has filed an affidavit alleging that it was obtained by the fraud, coercion and undue influence of the respondent

The question whether the release is for this cause invalid, the surrogate has no jurisdiction to determine. But iu view of the sworn allegation of its invalidity, I must order an accounting (Fraenzmick agt. Miller, 5 Redf., 136; Harris agt. Ely, 25 N. Y., 138; Rieben agt. Hicks, 4 Bradf., 136; Estate of Andress Schmidt, surrogate’s decisions, Dec. 23, 1885).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 240, 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-doffy-nysurct-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack