Case ID: ny_58/html/0663-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Folger, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary O’Gara, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Bridget Clearkin et al., Appellants.
    (Argued June 17, 1874;
    decided September 22, 1874.)
    An executor or administrator may employ an agent if the peculiar circumstances of the estate require it, and may be allowed for all proper expenses for its care and management; but the compensation of the agent must be measured by the nature, extent and value of the services.
    
      O’Gara v. Olea/rhin, 2 N. T. S. C. (T. &C.), 675, reversed.
    This was an appeal from an order of General Term reversing a surrogate’s decree upon the final accounting of respondent, as administratrix of the estate of William Domery, deceased. (Reported below, 2 H. Y. S. G. [T. & C.],-675.) • In her account she credited herself with various sums paid-to two brothers and a sister for services to the "estate. The' surrogate allowed a small proportion of the sums so credited' rejecting the residue. The court held as above, and that the' amounts allowed were sufficient to pay a full compensation for the services proved to have been rendered.
    
      Amasa J. Parker for the appellants.
    
      James Emott for the respondent.
   Folger, J.,

reads for reversal of order of General Term and affirmance of decree of surrogate.

All concur, except Church, Ch. J., not voting.

Order reversed, and judgment accordingly.