Case ID: misc_120/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foley, S.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Estate of Edward Schulze, Deceased.
    Surrogate’s Court, New York County,
    February, 1923.
    Limitation of actions — when running of statute not stayed by filing claim with debtor’s executor.
    A claim upon a judgment entered against decedent on November 8, 1901, was presented to the executor in 1921 who duly rejected it in 1922. Upon disallowing the claim, held, that under section 44 of the Civil Practice Act the judgment had become extinguished in twenty years from the date of its entry and that the filing of the claim did not stay the running of the Statute of Limitations.
    Proceeding to settle executor’s accounts.
    
      Getter, Rolston & Blanc (Howell D. Boyd, of counsel), for executor.
    
      Ernest M. Morrison, for claimant.
    
      Noble, Morgan & Scammell, for Daisy E. Schulze.
   Foley, S.

On November 8, 1901, a judgment for the sum of $269.25 was entered by Frederick C. Simons against one Edward Schulze. Nothing further was done by the judgment creditor to collect the judgment except that he filed a claim against the estate of this decedent on July 9, 1921, which was rejected in writing on June 23, 1922. No payment on the judgment or acknowledgment of the indebtedness has been made since the docketing thereof. The claim now comes before the surrogate for determination upon the accounting of the executor. The filing of the claim herein did not stay the running of the statute. Matter of Hoes, 183 App. Div. 38; Brinkman v. Cram, 175 id. 372. Section 44 of the Civil Practice Act extinguished the judgment on November 8, 1921, and the claim is, therefore, disallowed. Matter of Hoes, supra.

Decreed accordingly.