Murray v. Blatchford

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Murray v. Blatchford

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 164

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 164 (Murray v. Blatchford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murray v. Blatchford, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 164 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors assented to the principle of the Chancellor’s decree, as to the right of persons interested in an estate to pursue property into ■ the hands of any person who colludes or conspires with the executors to produce a devastavit. Collusion is any intermeddling with the executor or the assets of the testator, by which the executor is guilty of a violation of his duty.

But it was held by the Court of Errors, that though the release was executed by the two administrators, contrary to the known wishes of one third of those entitled to distribution, it was not liable to be set aside where there was no fraud or collusion shown between the debtor and the administrators ; and as the answer denied all fraud and collu[165]*165sion, and no evidence had been taken to establish either, that fraud or collusion could not be alleged to avoid the release.

Judgment reversed accordingly.

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

The Court of Errors assented to the principle of the Chancellor’s decree, as to the right of persons interested in an estate to pursue property into ■ the hands of any person who colludes or conspires with the executors to produce a devastavit. Collusion is any intermeddling with the executor or the assets of the testator, by which the executor is guilty of a violation of his duty.

But it was held by the Court of Errors, that though the release was executed by the two administrators, contrary to the known wishes of one third of those entitled to distribution, it was not liable to be set aside where there was no fraud or collusion shown between the debtor and the administrators ; and as the answer denied all fraud and collu[165]*165sion, and no evidence had been taken to establish either, that fraud or collusion could not be alleged to avoid the release.

Judgment reversed accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-blatchford-nycterr-1799.