Howard v. Dougherty
New York Surrogate's Court
This was an application for the appointment of a collector pending the contest of the will and codicil. It appeared that the will appointed one Barclay and James Watson as executors; that Barclay died, and a codicil was made appointing Frederick S. Howard as executor.
Read the full summary
This was an application for the appointment of a collector pending the contest of the will and codicil. It appeared that the will appointed one Barclay and James Watson as executors; that Barclay died, and a codicil was made appointing Frederick S. Howard as executor. Said Howard filed a petition, as said executor, setting forth that James Watson, in his life time, was the only qualified executor of James Costello, deceased, and had charge of his estate from March, 1874, to June, 1878, when he died, whereupon letters testamentary were issued on his will to Catherine Costello, the decedent, as…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
It is quite clear to my mind that Mr. Howard represents interests hostile to those of the present estate, to some extent at least.
By chapter 71 of the Laws of 1864, section 10, the act of 1837, chapter 460, section 23, was so amended as to give the executor named in the will a prior right to be appointed collector; but by the act of 1867, chapter 782, section 7, the provisions which gave such preference in the act of 1864 were repealed:
It is not quite clear why this repeal was made, but presumably because it was supposed that an executor who propounded a will would be in such a…
2Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of BurnhamNew York Surrogate's Court · 1921
- In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of EggswareNew York Surrogate's Court · 1924
- In re the Estate of EddyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1894
- Cornwell v. CornwellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882
- In re the Estate of SternsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1890