Case Name: In re HOPKINS' WILL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-12-29
Citations: 96 N.Y.S. 941
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re HOPKINS’ WILL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 96
Pages: 941–945

Head Matter:
(110 App. Div. 907)
In re HOPKINS’ WILL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 29, 1905.)
Appeal—Decisions Reviewable—Order to Show Cause.
Code Civ. Proe. § 2679, provides that, if a temporary administrator neglects to make a deposit of funds as prescribed in the last section, the surrogate must, on the application of a person interested, make an order directing him to do so forthwith, or to show cause why a warrant should not issue against him. Held, that an order under such section is not appealable.
Hooker, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County.
Motion by Joseph W. Middlebroolc, special guardian of Robert E. Hopkins, Jr., to punish Fanny W. Hopkins for contempt for failing to comply with the provisions of an order appointing her temporary administratrix of the estate of Robert E. Hopkins, deceased. From an order to show cause, said Fanny W. Hopkins appeals.
Dismissed.
See 87 N. Y. Supp. 793.
Argued before. HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODAVARD, JENKS, and HOOKER, JJ.
.Andrew J. Shipman and Clarence S. Davison, for appellant Fanny W. Hopkins.
Frank V. Millard, for appellant general guardian.
Joseph W. Middlebroolc, for respondent special guardian.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We regard the order appealed from in this case as an order to show cause, and therefore not appealable. See section 2679 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeals are dismissed, without costs, and the proceedings remitted to the Surrogate's Court of Westchester county for final disposition.
HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODWARD, and JENKS, JJ., concur.