Legal Opinion

In re the Judicial Settlement of Account of Proceedings of Vorndran

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided July 23, 1928PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Schulz, S.

The petitioner was the attorney for one of the interested parties in this estate and brought a proceeding to compel an accounting. To this accounting he filed objections on behalf of his client, which were subsequently withdrawn. He now brings this proceeding under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act asking that his fees for such services be determined and fixed and that an order be made directing the same to be paid out of the estate, upon the theory that he has rendered services of substantial benefit to the estate which should be compensated for by it and not by his client.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re the Will of ButtnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  2. In re the Estate of ParsonsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1923

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of HirschNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  2. In re the Estate of SmithNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  3. In re the Estate of WinburnNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
  4. In re the Estate of O'BrienNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  5. In re the Estate of ChavesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932

12 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