From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Constantine v. Constantine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1904
91 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)

Opinion

March, 1904.

Percy S. Dudley, for the appellant.

Frederic E. Mygatt, for the respondent.


The complaint alleges the death of Margaret Constantine in 1883, the probate of her last will and issuance of letters testamentary thereunder to Andrew J. Constantine, who continued to act as sole executor until his death on January 4, 1901; that as such executor he collected certain specified sums of money, aggregating more than $14,000; that he left a last will appointing defendant herein his executor and that letters testamentary were duly issued and that defendant has ever since continued to act as sole executor under said last-mentioned will. It also alleges the issuance of letters of administration to the plaintiff in 1902, and that she is sole administratrix of the estate of Margaret Constantine. Further it alleges that no part of the said specific sums of money was ever accounted for or paid over by defendant's decedent to the persons entitled under the will of said Margaret Constantine except three certain small sums aggregating less than $300, and that the remainder of said sums collected and received by defendant's decedent is now due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Among other defenses, the defendant pleaded the six years' Statute of Limitations, and to this the plaintiff demurred, thus admitting that the alleged cause of action did not accrue within six years before the commencement of the action.

In determining whether the six years' statute is a bar, we have only to look to the complaint to ascertain the nature of the cause of action. The plaintiff does not ask for an accounting, and Matter of Camp ( 126 N.Y. 377) and Matter of Jones ( 51 App. Div. 420) are, therefore, not in point. Having alleged that certain sums of money belonging to the plaintiff as administratrix have been received by the defendant's decedent and not accounted for, the plaintiff demands a money judgment against the defendant. The action is based upon an implied contract to pay over money belonging to the plaintiff, and the six years' Statute of Limitations, therefore, applies. (See decision of this court in Libby v. Van Derzee, 80 App. Div. 494; affd. without opinion, 176 N.Y. 591.)

The interlocutory judgment sustaining the demurrer should be reversed.

All concurred.

Interlocutory judgment reversed and demurrer overruled, with costs.


Summaries of

Constantine v. Constantine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1904
91 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)
Case details for

Constantine v. Constantine

Case Details

Full title:MARY CONSTANTINE, as Administratrix with the Will Annexed, etc., of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1904

Citations

91 App. Div. 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)
87 N.Y.S. 139

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. Mitchell

There is no evidence with respect to when plaintiff first knew or discovered that defendant had received this…