Loesche v. Griffin

3 Dem. Sur. 358
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedApril 15, 1885
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Dem. Sur. 358 (Loesche v. Griffin) 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
Loesche v. Griffin, 3 Dem. Sur. 358 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1885).

Opinion

The Surrogate.

The inventory filed by this decedent’s executor in November, 1883, is still missing from the files. When I vacated the order of April, 1884, that directed the filing of an inventory to supply the place of the one that had been mislaid, it ivas with the understanding that a copy of the inventory filed would be served upon the adverse party. This does not seem to have been done, the executor having contented himself with furnishing a list, not under oath, of the assets left by this decedent.

The present application for an inventory is, therefore, granted. The fact that the' property cannot now be submitted for inspection is no bar to it (see Silverbrandt v. Widmayer, 2 Dem., 263); and as the property is said to consist of but four items Avhereof each is an item of money, this direction can not occasion the executor any serious inconvenience.

The motion to require the executor to furnish security for costs must be denied. I have no power to grant it. The provisions of chapter 21, tit. 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to special proceedings in Surrogates’ courts (see § 3347, subd. 13).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Dem. Sur. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loesche-v-griffin-nysurct-1885.