In re the Estate of Huselton

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Huselton

135 Misc. 56, 237 N.Y.S. 531, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 960

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedAugust 30, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 Misc. 56 (In re the Estate of Huselton) 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 Huselton, 135 Misc. 56, 237 N.Y.S. 531, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 960 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Brien, S.

The issues raised by the objections filed to this account are determined as follows: I hold that the contestants are preferred claimants and should, therefore, be paid the amount of their claim, to wit, the sum of $506.64, in full. It is well established that where one of several parties collects the total proceeds of an insurance policy, payable “ as interest may appear,” he may be compelled to account for such portion which exceeds his interest, to the other person or persons interested in the insurance. (Cone v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co., 60 N. Y. 619; Tierney v. Home Title Insurance Co., 207 N. Y. Supp. 550; Symmers v. Carroll, 207 N. Y. 632.) The contention of the executors that the contestants lost their right to a preference because they did not accept the sum of $506.64 when offered by the decedent, on the ground that they were entitled to more, is of little weight in view of the fact that the contestants were at all times entitled to receive at least that amount from the decedent who continued to hold it until his death. Other creditors cannot be prejudiced by such a holding because the sum in question was never the property of the decedent but was at all times held by him as trustee for the contestants. It was not, therefore, any part of the estate distributable to other claimants. The objections, therefore, are sustained. Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.

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

O’Brien, S.

The issues raised by the objections filed to this account are determined as follows: I hold that the contestants are preferred claimants and should, therefore, be paid the amount of their claim, to wit, the sum of $506.64, in full. It is well established that where one of several parties collects the total proceeds of an insurance policy, payable “ as interest may appear,” he may be compelled to account for such portion which exceeds his interest, to the other person or persons interested in the insurance. (Cone v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co., 60 N. Y. 619; Tierney v. Home Title Insurance Co., 207 N. Y. Supp. 550; Symmers v. Carroll, 207 N. Y. 632.) The contention of the executors that the contestants lost their right to a preference because they did not accept the sum of $506.64 when offered by the decedent, on the ground that they were entitled to more, is of little weight in view of the fact that the contestants were at all times entitled to receive at least that amount from the decedent who continued to hold it until his death. Other creditors cannot be prejudiced by such a holding because the sum in question was never the property of the decedent but was at all times held by him as trustee for the contestants. It was not, therefore, any part of the estate distributable to other claimants. The objections, therefore, are sustained. Submit decree on notice settling the account accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 Misc. 56, 237 N.Y.S. 531, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-huselton-nysurct-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack