Legal Opinion

Stone v. Morgan

New York Court of Chancery

Decided April 2, 1844PublishedCited by 2 opinions

This was an application to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the surrogate of the county of Monroe. The respondents, as the representatives of S. Morgan, the next of kin of J. Morgan deceased, cited the appellant, as the administrator of J. Morgan, to account • as authorized by the 52d section of the article of the revised statutes relative to the duties of executors and administrators in rendering an account and in making distribution to the next of kin.

Read the full summary

This was an application to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the surrogate of the county of Monroe. The respondents, as the representatives of S. Morgan, the next of kin of J. Morgan deceased, cited the appellant, as the administrator of J. Morgan, to account • as authorized by the 52d section of the article of the revised statutes relative to the duties of executors and administrators in rendering an account and in making distribution to the next of kin. And such administrator rendered his account, which was passed upon by the surrogate. And the surrogate made a decree declaring the rights…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The petition of appeal was filed one day too late ; but the delay is fully excused, by the irregularity of the mail. And the neglect to procure the transcript within the twenty days is also satisfactorily accounted for. But as the time within which the appeal was to be brought depended upon a statutory regulation, and.not upon the rules or practice of the court, if the appeal was not entered with the surrogate within the time allowed by law for appealing, the objection is fatal, if it has not been waived by the respondent, and the appeal must be dismissed. (1 Paige’s Rep. 423.…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pearson v. LovejoyNew York Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Hynes v. McCreeryNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API