Case ID: misc_35/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Abbott, S.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Anna C. Browne, as Administratrix, etc., of Robert W. Browne, Deceased.
    (Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,
    June, 1901.)
    Power of surrogate on reference by consent of a disputed claim — Code C. P., §§ 1822, 8743.
    Where parties consent in writing that the surrogate may hear a ■disputed claim upon the judicial settlement of the accounts of the executor or administrator, the surrogate has power to inquire into and pass upon the payments made and may determine the amount due and the person entitled to it.
    Proceedings upon the judicial settlement of the accounts of an administratrix. '
    James Demarest, for administratrix.
    Walter F. Lewis, for claimant Drummond.
    Isaac P. Hubbard, special guardian.
   Abbott, S.

It was held in McNulty v. Hurd, 72 N. Y. 518-521, “ that the surrogate may inquire into, and pass upon, payments made to apply upon such judgments, and determine the amounts due thereon. He may also determine who is the owner of the judgment and entitled to ,the money. This power is necessary to enable the surrogate to make the decree. * * * Beyond this, the surrogate has no jurisdiction to try and determine questions in respect to the validity of judgments.”

I do not think this rule has been changed in any way by the amendment to section 1822 of the Code, providing for the hearing and determination of a claim upon a judicial settlement of an account upon the written consent of the respective parties.

Section 2743 of the Code provides, Where the validity of the debt, claim or distributive share is admitted nr has been established upon the accounting or other proceeding in the surrogate’s court or other court of competent jurisdiction, the decree must determine to whom it is payable, the sum to he paid by reason thereof and all other questions concerning the same ”.

The validity of the assignments of this claim has not been attacked in this proceeding, but, should they he, of course, this-court would he ousted of jurisdiction. Matter of Randall, 152 N. Y. 517.

I shall hold, therefore, that the claimant may proceed with his •proofs to the extent indicated in Hurd v. McNulty, supra, and the matter may he restored to the calendar for that purpose.

Decreed accordingly.