The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-02-14
The Lawrence Estate Controversy.
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION TO DISSOLVE rHR ISJUNC
TON RESTRAINING A COLLECTOR TO THK ESTATE.



TON RESTRAINING COLLECTOR TO THE ESTATE.
COURT COMMON yLEAs-cBAMBKRs.
- Before Judge Cardozo
FxB. 13.-Lduyencs ogoinst Paysons-The argument on
the motion dissolve tho Injunction restraining Mr.
wcare Parsons from acting collector Of the Lawrence
estate under the appointment Of the Surrogate was re-
sumed oday before Judge Cardoso The estate involved
10 this controversy Ia valued at $s5 900, and there
dispute between the nsphews and neces on one side
and the grandchildren on the other a. to who are the
legal heirs to the property. The nephews and nicces
claim that the srandchidren are the offspring Of cg
daughter Of the late MI and therefore
debarred from oil share IN tho estate. Pending the
litigation between the relatives Surrogate Tucker
was applied to, and appointed Mr. Parsons collector Of
tho estate. THIS action tho part OF the Surrogate
proved obnoxious 10 the grandchildren however and
the collector from acting Thercupon the nephows and
neces applied TO Judge Cardozo TO dissolve the inunc
tion and lengthy argument ensued between we counsel
with the order OF the Surrogate ExJudge Dean on
the part Of the grandchildren opened the argument op
ground that the collectors surecs had failed TO comply
with the statute, which required them 10 justify IN
until the bonds were perfected In compliance with the
Law that subject, Injunction was necessary 10 pre-
vent the estate from being squandercd away aud lost to
Mr.. Van Loon resumed the arsumen. to-day on behaf
Of tho nsphews and neces o. the testator He prcaced
been given TO the through the newspapers and WISH
Cd TO exousras his side from oil blame in having the pro-
ExJudge Dean In reply stated that he had refused TO
give his points 70 the reporters twice. and only
when be assured that Of the associate
the other side had given his points for publication that
he consented TO give nis.
| Mr.. Van I0on--wsi I was laborng under q misap.
prehenson and take all back. do not mean 70 cast
any aspersion on the counsel Whatever and will st the
\ matter drop here.
The counsel then proceeded with his argument, and
held that the appointment OF collector entirely
within the discretion Of the Surrogate, and usually
made whenever there was probability Of long delay IN
the granting OF the administration In chief and the power
70 appoint found In sec. 80, art q chap O. second
Revised Statutes page 100, volume g. nth edition. Also
that proceedings the Surrogatss Court cannot be
stayed BY order Of any other court 10 matter where
IN the Surrogate acquires the first jurisdiction takes
coepizance that court should NOS restrain on
GER such a receiver executor, omIproceedna 10
other court Of coordinate jurisdiction. In conclusion,
the held that the Surrogate was vested with full
power over oil the questions Of sursties and could CON-
pe any collector 10 give additional security a any time
TX Judge Smith then followed on the same side, and
spoke for nearly hour the ieaay OF Judge Days
interference with the order Of co ordinate court.
The further hearing Of The argument was then adjourned
until Thursday afternoon, when cx-Judge Dean VIII de-
liver the closing speech