In re the Estate of Latz

2 Silv. Ct. App. 109, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 532
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 2, 1888
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Silv. Ct. App. 109 (In re the Estate of Latz) 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 Estate of Latz, 2 Silv. Ct. App. 109, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 532 (N.Y. 1888).

Opinion

Ruger, Ch. J.

Martin Clark, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Catharine Latz, deceased, presented his petition to the surrogate, praying for an order against the executrix of John Latz, deceased, administrator of said Catherine Latz, requiring her to account for the unadministered assets of said Catherine Latz remaining in the hands of such executrix.

The executrix answered such petition and plead, among other things, the statute of limitations as a bar thereto.

[110]*110The facts upon which the defense was based were substantially admitted upon the hearing, and the surrogate decided that the statute was a bar to further proceedings. Upon appeal to the general term that court reversed the order of the surrogate, and directed that the proceedings be remitted to the surrogate for an accounting as demanded by the petition.

This order is not a final order, and being made in a special proceeding, is therefore unappealable to this court. Subd. 3, § 190, Code of Civil Procedure; Roe v. Boyle, Exr., etc., 81 N. Y. 305; In re Whittlesey v. Hoguet, 66 N. Y. 358.

The question whether this proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations may be the subject of litigation upon the accounting, but whether so or not is immaterial upon the question of the powers of this court to review the order appealed from.

The adjudication of the general term was not final upon any question in the case.

The appeal must therefore be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

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

Related

In Re Whittlesey v. . Hoguet
66 N.Y. 358 (New York Court of Appeals, 1876)
Roe v. . Boyle
81 N.Y. 305 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Silv. Ct. App. 109, 18 N.Y. St. Rep. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-latz-ny-1888.