Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Strange

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided October 30, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Delehanty, S.

In making this application to compel an accounting the petitioner, a domestic corporation, calls itself the “ assignee of all of the distributees.” If this description is correct there can be no doubt that the petitioner is a person interested in the estate within the meaning of section 259 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

In her answer the administratrix c. t. a., by denial and an affirmative defense, challenges the status of the petitioner. She sets forth in extenso an agreement between all of the so-called distributees on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, which was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Field v. . the Mayor, C. of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
  2. Jackson ex dem. Varick v. WaldronCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1834
  3. In re the Probate of a Paper Propounded as the Last Will & Testament of ZimmermanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1918
  4. Stover v. EycleshimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
  5. Stover v. EycleshimerNew York Supreme Court · 1865

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barnett v. JaspanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  2. University Mews Associates v. JeanmarieNew York Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Continental Illinois National Bank v. LlewellynAppellate Court of Illinois · 1966
  4. In re the Estate of CornellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
  5. In re the Probate of the Will of ClevelandNew York Surrogate's Court · 1959

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API