Case ID: johns-ch_3/html/0409-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Denning against Smith and others.
    
      July 20th.
    
    Where a bill is filed by an executor, for a settlement of his accounts, and for disclosures as to distribution, &c. the defendants are not entitled, on petition, to an inspection of the accounts and vouchers of the executor, to enable them to answer the bill.
    
      GRAHAM, solicitor for defendant, upon petition, moved, that the plaintiff deposit with the Register, his accounts, and vouchers, as surviving executor of Thomas Smithy who was surviving executor of William Smith, The bill was for a settlement of his accounts, and for directions as to distribution; and the object of the petition was, to have an inspection of the papers, to enable the defendants to answer the bill.
    
      RIGGS, contra,
    contended, that the motion was unprecedented, vexatious, and unnecessary; that when they came to the accounts before the Master, all the accounts and vouchers must be produced and examined. The bill only requires the defendants to admit what they have received or deny what they are charged with. Orders have never gone farther than to require before answer, the production of deeds, set forth with a proferí-.
    
   Per Curiam.

Motion denied.