Weed v. Waterbury

5 Redf. 114
New York Surrogate's Court·Decided February 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Surrogate.

I see no necessity for either such a reference, or the appointment of a temporary administrator ; for, assuming that the decedent was not a resident of this State at the time of his decease, yet having left assets in this county, the Surrogate has jurisdiction to appoint an administrator (3 R. S., 76 [6 ed.], § 24, subd. 2); and the application for ancillary letters does not prevent the issuing of letters to this petitioner (see Code. Civ. Pro., % 2696, subd. 2), as the petitioner is a relative of decedent, legally competent to act, and has made application to the Surrogate having jurisdiction, and the application has not been finally disposed of.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that, on giving the [116] requisite security, the petitioner is entitled to letters. This determination is independent of the question of the residence; and the rights of all parties may be protected upon that question on the final accounting and the distribution of the estate.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Weed v. Waterbury, 5 Redf. 114 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1881).

5 Redf. 114 (Weed v. Waterbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Tanskanen
191 Misc. 518 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1948)
Lussen v. Timmerman
4 Dem. Sur. 250 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1885)