Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Sielcken

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 14, 1941PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Foley, S.

The preliminary motion to dismiss the application brought by the attorney for the widow of the testator, the residuary legatee, to fix his compensation'under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, for services rendered and to direct payment thereof out of the general funds of the estate, is granted in the exercise of the discretion of the surrogate and as a matter of law.

The services which are the basis of the petitioner’s application were rendered by him in an accounting proceeding of the executor of the estate. The petitioner was retained by the widow to repre*236sent her. On her…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Matter of LoomisNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Estate of LounsberryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  3. In re the Estate of HirschNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  4. In re the Estate of CurleyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
  5. In re the Estate of ParsonsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1923

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bennett v. LundellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. In re the Accounting of GenoveseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  3. In re the Accounting of KochNew York Surrogate's Court · 1944
  4. In re the Accounting of MassNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951
  5. In re the Estate of HeilbronnerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1963

4 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