From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Choate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1905
105 App. Div. 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)

Opinion

June, 1905.

Roger Foster, for the appellant.

James C. Bushby, for the respondents.

Present — O'BRIEN, INGRAHAM, MCLAUGHLIN and HATCH, JJ.


Pending the determination of proceedings which resulted in a decree admitting this will to probate and rejecting a later one presented by the appellant, a temporary administrator was appointed. Upon the entry of the decree of probate, letters testamentary were issued to the respondents herein, being two of the three executors named in the will; they qualified as such, entered upon their duties and were so engaged when the appellant and certain special guardians served notice of appeal from the probate decree.

The effect of this appeal was to suspend the functions of the executors, and with a view of preserving the estate pending such appeal, they applied for and obtained from the surrogate this order conferring upon them limited authority under section 2582 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal from the decree, by suspending the functions of the executors, made it necessary that some one should be appointed to take charge of and preserve the estate, and we do not agree with the appellant's contention that these duties should of necessity have been again confided to the temporary administrator who had been originally appointed while the proceedings relating to the probate of the will were pending. We cannot assent to this view, for the reason that, in our opinion, upon the issuance of letters testamentary, the temporary administrator theretofore appointed became functus officio, and the surrogate could not continue the temporary administrator after the issuance of such letters. Whether the surrogate, when the appeal from the decree of probate was taken, could have again appointed the person or corporation, who formerly had acted as temporary administrator, to preserve the estate during the pendency of such appeal, it is not necessary for us to determine, the question being as to his right, under the section of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to, to grant to these executors the limited authority therein provided for.

We think he had such power, and that the order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Matter of Choate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1905
105 App. Div. 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)
Case details for

Matter of Choate

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of SARAH J. HASSETT CHOATE…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1905

Citations

105 App. Div. 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1905)
94 N.Y.S. 176

Citing Cases

Matter of Shonts

The allegations of the petition fully justify the surrogate in granting temporary administration pursuant to…

Matter of Kennedy

Considering sections 2557 and 2560, it becomes clear that the effect of a perfected appeal is to stay the…