Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Hannah McGowan, Exr’x of John F. Wallace, deceased.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department
    
    
      Filed June 6, 1890.)
    
    Legacy — Interest.
    A legacy bears interest only from the time when it becomes due and payable, which in cases where no time is fixed for payment by the will is one year after granting of letters testamentary, and not from one year after testator’s death.-
    Appeal from portions of surrogate’s decree overruling the finding of a referee allowing interest on a specific legacy from one year after the granting of letters testamentary.
    Testatrix died July 23, 1885. Objections were filed to the pro bate of her will and letters testamentary were not granted until June 28, 1887. The referee accordingly found that interest ran on the legacies from J une 28, 1888.
    The surrogate overruled this finding and held that the interest! ran from one year after testatrix’ death, or from July 23, 1886.
    
      Charles 3. Woodbury, for app’lt, Hannah McGowan; Johr\ Reynolds,, for resp’t, William Carroll. .
   Per Curiam.

The only question which it is necessary for ul to consider upon this appeal is, whether a legacy bears interesl after one year from the death of the testator or from the timJ when it becomes payable, which is, in cases where no time is fixed for payment, one year after the granting of letters testamentar

Since the decision by the learned surrogate, we think that thl question has been settled by the court of appeals adversely to thl view taken by him.

In the case of Thorn v. Garner, 113 N. Y., 202; 22 N. Y. State Rep., 692, the court of appeals have decided that except i| some peculiar cases legacies only draw interest from the time the! become due and payable.

The decree of the surrogate should, therefore, be reversed, far as appealed from, and the case sent back to the surrogate| court for further action.

Van Brunt, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.