In re Carman
New York Surrogate's Court
The question submitted was whether the trustees were entitled to full commissions as such, by having settled their accounts as executors, and received their commissions as such.
Read the full summary
The question submitted was whether the trustees were entitled to full commissions as such, by having settled their accounts as executors, and received their commissions as such. The will devised and bequeathed all the rest, residue and remainder of the testator’s estate to his executors, to sell in their discretion; to divide it into three equal shares, and of the shares respectively pay over the rents and profits of one of said shares to his son Charles E. Carman, during his life, and after his death to divide the same among his children. Three executors qualified, and in 1870 they accounted…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
— The act of 1866 chap. 115, provides that any trustee created by a last will and testament, or appointed by any competent authority to execute any trust created by such last will and *48testament, may, from time to time, render and finally settle his accounts before the surrogate, in the manner provided by law for final settlement of the accounts of executors and administrators, and that on such accounting as such trustees, the surrogate before whom such accounting may be had shall allow to the trustee or trustees the same compensation for his or their services, by way of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Meacham v. SternesNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Wagstaff v. LowerreNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Cairns v. ChaubertNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Drake v. . PriceNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Mann v. LawrenceNew York Surrogate's Court · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re RooseveltNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882
- Hall v. CampbellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882
- In re StarrNew York Surrogate's Court · 1884