Teitelbaum v. Machlowitz

City of New York Municipal Court

Teitelbaum v. Machlowitz

145 Misc. 803, 261 N.Y.S. 890, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1747

DecidedNovember 21, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 145 Misc. 803 (Teitelbaum v. Machlowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Teitelbaum v. Machlowitz, 145 Misc. 803, 261 N.Y.S. 890, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1747 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Goldstein, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,150 as an alleged over-payment of a claim against the estate of the deceased, the plaintiff, as executrix, having allowed and paid the defendant’s claim in the sum of $1,450, and now alleges that the estate is insolvent and that said payment was an overpayment to the defendant.

It does not appear from the complaint that there has been a judicial accounting in the estate, and while the case of Woodruff v. Claflin Co. (198 N. Y. 470), cited by the plaintiff as an authority for such an action, permits such a suit, the same case also holds that no such action may be brought until there has been a judicial accounting and a definite determination of the insolvency of the estate. Judge Willard Bartlett, writing the opinion, says (at p. 473): “ Hence whether the over-paid creditor shares the erroneous belief of the administrator that the estate is solvent, or is acquainted with its true condition, he is equally obligated to return the surplus he has received over the dividend to which he was entitled when it has become judicially ascertained that the estate is not large enough to pay all the debts in full.” (See, also, Morris v. Porter, 87 Me. 510.)

The motion is, therefore, granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within five days if he be so advised.

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

Goldstein, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,150 as an alleged over-payment of a claim against the estate of the deceased, the plaintiff, as executrix, having allowed and paid the defendant’s claim in the sum of $1,450, and now alleges that the estate is insolvent and that said payment was an overpayment to the defendant.

It does not appear from the complaint that there has been a judicial accounting in the estate, and while the case of Woodruff v. Claflin Co. (198 N. Y. 470), cited by the plaintiff as an authority for such an action, permits such a suit, the same case also holds that no such action may be brought until there has been a judicial accounting and a definite determination of the insolvency of the estate. Judge Willard Bartlett, writing the opinion, says (at p. 473): “ Hence whether the over-paid creditor shares the erroneous belief of the administrator that the estate is solvent, or is acquainted with its true condition, he is equally obligated to return the surplus he has received over the dividend to which he was entitled when it has become judicially ascertained that the estate is not large enough to pay all the debts in full.” (See, also, Morris v. Porter, 87 Me. 510.)

The motion is, therefore, granted, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within five days if he be so advised.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 Misc. 803, 261 N.Y.S. 890, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitelbaum-v-machlowitz-nynyccityct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack