In re the Estate of Smith

26 N.Y. St. Rep. 237
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re the Estate of Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Pow. Surr. 31
New York Surrogate's Court·Decided September 20, 1889·Published

Opinion

Ransom, S.

The evidence warrants the findings contained in the report of the, referee, and also the disposition which he made of the requests to find of the petitioner, Hanford Smith.

The provisions of the Code, as well as the cases cited below, show that it is not necessary to find that the respondent was dishonest, although it is not entirely beyond doubt that she was not. Nor is it necessary to find that she was improvident, in the general sense of that term, to justify her removal, but the grounds specified in the referee’s report are sufficient, and compel the court to decree her removal. Code Civ. Pro., § 2817, subd. 2; Estate of Stanton, 18 N. Y. State Rep., 807; Morgan v. Morgan, 3 Dem., 616.

[238]*238The case of Emerson v. Bowers, 14 N. Y., 449, referred to by the respondent’s attorney upon the argument, has no application, as the facts relied upon for the removal of the trustee in the present proceeding were not then grounds for removal, and, of course, were not considered. The Code of Civil Procedure has since made them such grounds. See section of Code above cited

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

In re the Estate of Smith, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 237 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

26 N.Y. St. Rep. 237 (In re the Estate of Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Emerson v. . Bowers
14 N.Y. 449 (New York Court of Appeals, 1856)