Legal Opinion

In Re the Accounting of Underhill

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 10, 1889PublishedCited by 48 opinions

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made the second Monday of May, 1889, which affirmed an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county, vacating so much of a former decree of that court rendered upon the final accounting of Philip B. Underhill, executor of the will of Elizabeth B. Underhill, deceased, as gave judgment that said Underhill have and recover from a legatee named an amount found to have been…

Read the full summary

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, made the second Monday of May, 1889, which affirmed an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county, vacating so much of a former decree of that court rendered upon the final accounting of Philip B. Underhill, executor of the will of Elizabeth B. Underhill, deceased, as gave judgment that said Underhill have and recover from a legatee named an amount found to have been over-paid him by said executor. The Surrogate’s Court can administer the remedy in the same proceeding by the proper decree.…

1Opinion of the CourtPeckham, J.

The order in this matter must be affirmed. The original proceeding was one for the judicial settlement •of the account of the executor before the surrogate. This ■officer can exercise only such jurisdiction as has been specially conferred by statute, together with those incidental powers which may be requisite to effectually carry out the jurisdiction actually granted. (Riggs v. Cragg, 89 N. Y. 489, and cases there cited.)

The Code of Civil Procedure now regulates an accounting-by executors or administrators, although its provisions are mainly a transcript from the Revised Statutes upon the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Riggs v. . CraggNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  2. Hyland v. . BaxterNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  3. Matter of Accounting of MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1885

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of RandallNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. In re CooganNew York Supreme Court · 1899
  3. In re FlanaganNew York Surrogate's Court · 1929
  4. In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Executors of HodgmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  5. In re StarbuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API