From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Griffith

Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County
May 1, 1918
103 Misc. 562 (N.Y. Misc. 1918)

Summary

In Matter of Griffith (103 Misc. 562), the Surrogate makes a similar distinction in denying jury trial of such an issue between the executors and their attorney.

Summary of this case from Matter of Britton

Opinion

May, 1918.

Edward J. Flanagan, for petitioner.

Marshall Snyder, for executors George A. Dausey and Frank M. Cook.


This is a proceeding by an attorney to ascertain the value of services rendered by him to the executors for the benefit of the estate and to obtain a direction that such ascertained amount be paid to him out of any property of the estate received by the executors.

The executors and all persons interested in the estate have been cited as parties to the proceeding. The executors interpose an answer, and demand that the issues raised by the petition and answer be tried by jury. In support of this demand it is argued that this case is in analogy to an action to recover for services rendered. But the likeness asserted fails when it is seen that the cause of action alleged is such that no action at law thereon would lie against any of the parties cited. The executors are but nominal parties, against whom personally no recovery is sought, while the legatees have no relation to the attorney, contractual or otherwise, upon which a cause of action could be asserted, which would be triable by jury. The determination of the amount due, if any, is only an incident to a decree that such amount be paid from the fund which beneficially belongs to persons who have no duty at law to pay the same. Hence, as to none of the parties is there any question of fact of which there is a constitutional right of trial by jury.

The present case is like an action in which the same relief was sought, and such action would clearly lie in equity only. It is not enough for the executors' demand that, if a case were brought for the recovery of the value of the services against a person who had promised to pay therefor, a right of jury trial would be had, for there could be no such case, since there is no such person.

The very reason for the existence of this proceeding is that the attorney has no adequate remedy at law, and that he is, therefore, without relief unless it be in equity. Matter of Rabell, 175 A.D. 345, 351, 352.

The executors have no constitutional right of trial by jury of the issues in this case, and their demand therefor is not granted.

Decreed accordingly.


Summaries of

Matter of Griffith

Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County
May 1, 1918
103 Misc. 562 (N.Y. Misc. 1918)

In Matter of Griffith (103 Misc. 562), the Surrogate makes a similar distinction in denying jury trial of such an issue between the executors and their attorney.

Summary of this case from Matter of Britton
Case details for

Matter of Griffith

Case Details

Full title:Matter of the Petition of JOHN S. GRIFFITH, for the Ascertainment of the…

Court:Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Date published: May 1, 1918

Citations

103 Misc. 562 (N.Y. Misc. 1918)
170 N.Y.S. 629

Citing Cases

Matter of Britton

It should be noted that in the Pardee case ( supra) mention was made in the opinions of both the Surrogate…

Matter of Hamilton

But there seems to be some divergence of opinion as to this proposition. ( Matter of Crook, 119 Misc. 643;…