Haskin v. Teller
New York Surrogate's Court
In November, 1865, Richard H. Teller was appointed collector, &c., of the intestate estate, pending a controversy as to his appointment as administrator, he being the general guardian of an infant next>of-kin. In June, 1867, he was duly appointed such administrator. There ivas litigation in regard to the estate, and various charges were incurred by the administrator for personal expenses and for counsel fees in the several controversies.
Read the full summary
In November, 1865, Richard H. Teller was appointed collector, &c., of the intestate estate, pending a controversy as to his appointment as administrator, he being the general guardian of an infant next>of-kin. In June, 1867, he was duly appointed such administrator. There ivas litigation in regard to the estate, and various charges were incurred by the administrator for personal expenses and for counsel fees in the several controversies. In January, 1869, an agreement was entered into by the parties in interest, for an immediate distribution of the fund remaining in the hands of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Surrogate.
I can see no reason to disturb the report of the auditor as to the “First” and “Second” findings. The testimony was somewhat conflicting in some respects and in others vague. I think he has done substantial justice in regard to those items.
I feel constrained, however, to differ from him as to the “ Third.” It was held by this court in Hitchcock v. Marshall (2 Redf., 174), that a Surrogate’s Court had no power to decree payment to an assignee of a distributive share, but must direct it to be made to the distributee himself, and that the assignee must seek relief in some forum…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. KearneyNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
- Hitchcock v. MarshallNew York Surrogate's Court · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dixon v. StormNew York Surrogate's Court · 1881
- In re HarrisNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886
- Hoffman v. Pennsylvania HospitalNew York Surrogate's Court · 1882