In re Harvey
New York Surrogate's Court
This was a petition for the revocation of letters of administration theretofore issued to Mary J. Odell upon the estate of the above-named intestate, and for the issue of letters of administration thereupon, to the petitioners.
Read the full summary
This was a petition for the revocation of letters of administration theretofore issued to Mary J. Odell upon the estate of the above-named intestate, and for the issue of letters of administration thereupon, to the petitioners. The petition set forth that on or about the" 28th day of April, 1876, at the city of Turin, Italy, Emily Harvey, the wife of Edward Harvey, departed this life, intestate, and without issue, leaving her husband surviving; that on or about the 9th day of June, 1876, letters of administration upon the estate of the intestate were granted by the Surrogate of the County of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
— The answer alleging want of jurisdiction in the Surrogate of King’s County to take *216.probate of the will of Edward Harvey, cannot be litigated here. The decision of the Surrogate of King’s County, upon the question of jurisdiction, is conclusive, and cannot be attacked collaterally, for the reason that the said Surrogate must, of necessity, have passed upon that question before he admitted said will to probate. (Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, 63 N. Y., 460; Bolton v. Brewster, 32 Barb., 390.)
The Eevised Statutes of this State (2 R. S., p. 75, § 29) give to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roderigas v. . East River Savings InstitutionNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Barnes v. . UnderwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Roosevelt v. EllithorpNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Lockwood v. StockholmNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fry v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- In re the Estate of DanielsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
- Gilman v. McArdleThe Superior Court of New York City · 1883
- In re the Application for Letters of Administration of the GoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1891