Holmes v. Cock
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from an order of the surrogate of the county of Dutchess, requiring S. D. Holmes, the appellant, to give security for the faithful discharge of his trust, as executor of Noah Cock deceased. The application was made by W. H. Cock, the respondent, who was one of the residuary legatees of the testator.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of the surrogate of the county of Dutchess, requiring S. D. Holmes, the appellant, to give security for the faithful discharge of his trust, as executor of Noah Cock deceased. The application was made by W. H. Cock, the respondent, who was one of the residuary legatees of the testator. Three executors were appointed by the will, but two of them died subsequent to the death of the testator; leaving the appellant, who was one of his sons in law, the sole executor. The personal estate had all been administered. And the only duty still to be performed by the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The first objection made to the decree of the surrogate is that the appellant should not have been required to give security. Under the circumstances, I think there was no error in this respect. The statute authorizes the surrogate to require security to be given, where the circumstances of the executor have become so precarious as not to afford adequate security for the due administration of the estate. *428Here th'e contingency contemplated by the legislature.had happened. Two of‘the three executors appointed 'by’the testator, to discharge the trusts of his will, had died, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Perkins v. LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Freeman v. KelloggNew York Surrogate's Court · 1880
- In re the Estate of O'BrienNew York Surrogate's Court · 1892