People v. Banker
New York Supreme Court
The complaint states that the defendant and Bridget Pearce were appointed by the Surrogate of Chemung, administrator and administratrix of the estate of Jonathan Pearce, and gave the proper bond with sureties.
Read the full summary
The complaint states that the defendant and Bridget Pearce were appointed by the Surrogate of Chemung, administrator and administratrix of the estate of Jonathan Pearce, and gave the proper bond with sureties. That afterwards, on the 19th of April, 1845, the Surrogate made a decree that the personal representatives should pay to Andrew Sanford and Lewis Sanford the sum of twenty-three dollars and ninety-five cents, each, for their distributive shares of the estate, and on the 2d of June, 1851, he made a further order that the bond be prosecuted for the collection of these moneys. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
It is alleged in the answer that the Surrogate had directed the distributive share of the estate of which the defendant was administrator, which belonged to the infants Andrew Sanford and Lewis Sanford, to be paid over to their *260general guardian. This he had authority to do. (2 R. S. 98, § 80.) The general guardian thereby became entitled to receive the money. To recover this money it is alleged, he brought an action before a justice of the peace. Whether that action was brought in the name of the guardian or the infants, or, like this, in the name of the People, is not stated.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rayner v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hower v. AultmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Ayres v. O'FarrellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Pardo v. OsgoodThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
- Perkins v. IngersollU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · 1871
- Thiem v. MaddenNew York Supreme Court · 1882