Fitch v. Witbeck
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, from an order of the surrogate of the county of Rensselaer, directing the sale of the real estate of J. J. Yan Alstyne, deceased. The petitioners, together with the widow of the decedent, were appointed administrators of his estate, in September, 1834. In June, 1835, they applied to the surrogate for the sale of the real estate, or a part of it, for the payment of debts.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, from an order of the surrogate of the county of Rensselaer, directing the sale of the real estate of J. J. Yan Alstyne, deceased. The petitioners, together with the widow of the decedent, were appointed administrators of his estate, in September, 1834. In June, 1835, they applied to the surrogate for the sale of the real estate, or a part of it, for the payment of debts. And such proceedings thereon were had that two pieces of land were sold, under the order of the surrogate, and the proceeds thereof were distributed according to law. The respondents afterwards applied for…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
From a careful examination of the provisions of the revised statutes, I am satisfied that several of the appellant’s objections to the proceedings before the surrogate were well taken. The return states that the order appealed from was made after heating the proofs and allegations of the parties. No proofs, however, are returned by the surrogate. But the return states that it appears by the minutes of the surrogate, that upon the hearing before him, the administrators abandoned all claim for authority to mortgage or sell the real estate of the decedent, except for the purpose…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Falley v. GriblingIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Sanford v. GrangerNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Personette v. JohnsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1885
- Hutchinson v. NewboldNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1889
- Carr v. HullOhio Supreme Court · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.