Fassbender v. American Surety Co.
New York Supreme Court
Action by the successor of au administrator against the surety upon the official bond of his predecessor, whose letters had been revoked by a decree of the Surrogate’s Court. At the close of plaintiff’s case the defendant did not introduce any evidence but moved to dismiss the complaint upon the facts disclosed by plaintiff’s evidence.
1Opinion of the CourtScudder, J.
The essential facts established by plaintiff’s evidence are as follows: One John A. Lauck was appointed the administrator of the estate of his father, Adolph Lauck, deceased, and upon receiving letters of administration filed the usual administrator’s bond, executed by himself as principal and the defendant herein as surety.
By a decree of the Surrogate’s Court said Lauck, as administrator, was directed to file his account; he neglected to do so, and his letters were revoked. Thereafter the plaintiff in this action was appointed administrator of the estate of said Adolph Lauck, deceased; and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hood v. . HaywardNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Haight v. . BrisbinNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Otto v. . Van RiperNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Rouse v. PayneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Alexandrou v. AlexanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974