Sutherland v. Ronald

New York Supreme Court

Sutherland v. Ronald

18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238

DecidedJune 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238 (Sutherland v. Ronald) 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

Sutherland v. Ronald, 18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.:

¥e have not had the benefit of an argument by counsel in this case. Our impressions, however, are very decided, that no judgment can be rendered, other than for the defendant, without prejudice to an action by the plaintiff for the legacy, under the statute, on fifing a bond as therein required. (2 R. S., 114; §§ 9, 10, 11.) A legatee cannot maintain an action for the sole purpose of obtaining a construction of a will. He may sue for the legacy, and the suit may involve construction, but if he sues at law, it must be in the mode prescribed by statute. At common law, a suit for a legacy did not fie. (Deeks v. Strutt, 5 T. R., 690; Pelletreau v. Eden, 18 Johns. R., 428.) He may, in a proper case, resort to a court of equity, or the executor may bring an action to obtain a construction of the will, but if either of the last two remedies be pursued, all persons having an interest, as, in this case, the residuary legatees, must be made parties. (See Hobart College v. Fitzhugh, 21 N. Y., 130; op. Marvin, J., pp. 133, 134.)

Proceeding dismissed without judgment, and without costs to either party.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Talcott and Smith, JJ.

Proceedings dismissed without judgment, and without costs to either party.

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

Smith, J.:

¥e have not had the benefit of an argument by counsel in this case. Our impressions, however, are very decided, that no judgment can be rendered, other than for the defendant, without prejudice to an action by the plaintiff for the legacy, under the statute, on fifing a bond as therein required. (2 R. S., 114; §§ 9, 10, 11.) A legatee cannot maintain an action for the sole purpose of obtaining a construction of a will. He may sue for the legacy, and the suit may involve construction, but if he sues at law, it must be in the mode prescribed by statute. At common law, a suit for a legacy did not fie. (Deeks v. Strutt, 5 T. R., 690; Pelletreau v. Eden, 18 Johns. R., 428.) He may, in a proper case, resort to a court of equity, or the executor may bring an action to obtain a construction of the will, but if either of the last two remedies be pursued, all persons having an interest, as, in this case, the residuary legatees, must be made parties. (See Hobart College v. Fitzhugh, 21 N. Y., 130; op. Marvin, J., pp. 133, 134.)

Proceeding dismissed without judgment, and without costs to either party.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Talcott and Smith, JJ.

Proceedings dismissed without judgment, and without costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-ronald-nysupct-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack