Power v. Bermester

New York Supreme Court

Power v. Bermester

12 N.Y.S. 25, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 716, 58 Hun 607, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3529

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 25 (Power v. Bermester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Power v. Bermester, 12 N.Y.S. 25, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 716, 58 Hun 607, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3529 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

Dina Overbeck, a resident of the city of Brooklyn, died, ■as was supposed, intestate, in June, 1887. The defendant Gertrude Bermester was next of kin to deceased. She renounced her right to administration, and the public administrator was appointed in June, 1887. In July, 1887, ttlie defendent Bermester presented a petition to the surrogate of Kings county, stating the death’of Dina Overbeck intestate, that she was the-only next of kin, and resided in Kings county, and asked to be appointed administratrix. Letters of administration were issued to her, and the defendants Speekman and "Towsma became her sureties. The administratrix Bermester received a considerable sum of money as administratrix, which she refuses to pay over to the plaintiff, who was subsequently appointed the executor of the deceased, she in fact having left a will. The surety denies his liability, because the appointment of Gertrude Bermester was void. The surrogate had jurisdiction of the estate and of the person of Mrs. Bermester. The appointment cannot be assailed collaterally. Kelly v. West, 80 N. Y. 139. The sureties are es-topped from denying liability, the principal having, and without fraud, made ‘the engagement. Kimball v. Newell, 7 Hill, 116. The surrogate’s order Axing the amount of the administratrix’s defalcation bound the sureties as well as the administratrix. Scofield v. Churchill, 72 N. Y. 565. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Barnard, P. J.

Dina Overbeck, a resident of the city of Brooklyn, died, ■as was supposed, intestate, in June, 1887. The defendant Gertrude Bermester was next of kin to deceased. She renounced her right to administration, and the public administrator was appointed in June, 1887. In July, 1887, ttlie defendent Bermester presented a petition to the surrogate of Kings county, stating the death’of Dina Overbeck intestate, that she was the-only next of kin, and resided in Kings county, and asked to be appointed administratrix. Letters of administration were issued to her, and the defendants Speekman and "Towsma became her sureties. The administratrix Bermester received a considerable sum of money as administratrix, which she refuses to pay over to the plaintiff, who was subsequently appointed the executor of the deceased, she in fact having left a will. The surety denies his liability, because the appointment of Gertrude Bermester was void. The surrogate had jurisdiction of the estate and of the person of Mrs. Bermester. The appointment cannot be assailed collaterally. Kelly v. West, 80 N. Y. 139. The sureties are es-topped from denying liability, the principal having, and without fraud, made ‘the engagement. Kimball v. Newell, 7 Hill, 116. The surrogate’s order Axing the amount of the administratrix’s defalcation bound the sureties as well as the administratrix. Scofield v. Churchill, 72 N. Y. 565. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 25, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 716, 58 Hun 607, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/power-v-bermester-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack