In re the Estate of Roos

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Roos

132 Misc. 749, 230 N.Y.S. 330, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1309

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedJune 9, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 Misc. 749 (In re the Estate of Roos) 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 Roos, 132 Misc. 749, 230 N.Y.S. 330, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1309 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Schulz, S.

It appears from an examination of the papers in this matter that the executrix has paid to herself a claim which she alleged she had against the estate. This she had no right to do until the same was proved to and allowed by the surrogate (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 212), and without the payment of this claim there would be a surplus in the account. Such being the case, the matter1 should not be adjudicated without having all parties before the court. Some of them, who are adults, have appeared by attorney duly authorized, and he could, if he so desired, present a stipulation consenting that the evidence which has been taken in this matter shall be considered with the same force and effect as though the same had been taken after his appearance. There is an infant, however, whose interests are involved; he cannot consent, and a supplemental citation should, therefore, be issued to him, and to all other persons who must be [750]*750cited on the petition for a judicial settlement of the account, except such as have appeared (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 260), before the matter may be determined.

Submit order directing the issuance of supplemental citation accordingly.

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

Schulz, S.

It appears from an examination of the papers in this matter that the executrix has paid to herself a claim which she alleged she had against the estate. This she had no right to do until the same was proved to and allowed by the surrogate (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 212), and without the payment of this claim there would be a surplus in the account. Such being the case, the matter1 should not be adjudicated without having all parties before the court. Some of them, who are adults, have appeared by attorney duly authorized, and he could, if he so desired, present a stipulation consenting that the evidence which has been taken in this matter shall be considered with the same force and effect as though the same had been taken after his appearance. There is an infant, however, whose interests are involved; he cannot consent, and a supplemental citation should, therefore, be issued to him, and to all other persons who must be [750]*750cited on the petition for a judicial settlement of the account, except such as have appeared (Surrogate’s Court Act, § 260), before the matter may be determined.

Submit order directing the issuance of supplemental citation accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 Misc. 749, 230 N.Y.S. 330, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-roos-nysurct-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack