Case Name: In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Julius Ablowich, as Administrator, etc., of Harris Ablowich, Deceased, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-04-05
Citations: 118 A.D. 626
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Julius Ablowich, as Administrator, etc., of Harris Ablowich, Deceased, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 626–633

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Julius Ablowich, as Administrator, etc., of Harris Ablowich, Deceased, Respondent.
Emanuel Blumenstiel, as Administrator de Bonis Non of Harris Ablowich, Deceased, Appellant.
First Department,
April 5, 1907.
Executors and administrators — liability of administrator for obligations of his firm to the estate — effect of revocation of letters.
When a member of a firm is appointed administrator of an estate to which his firm is indebted he is chargeable with the indebtedness, and notes and'checks which represent the debt will he"treated as so much money iá his hands for the usual purpose of administration.
Nor does he cease to be chargeable with the indebtedness of his firm because his letters are revoked before the estate is administered and the firm obligations are turned over to and accepted by his successor.
Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., dissented in part, with opinion.
Appeal by Emanuel Blumenstiel, as administrator de bonis non .of Harris Ablowich, deceased, from a decree of the Surrogate's Court of the county of New York, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 4th day of October, 1905, confirming the report of a referee and settling the accounts of Julius Ablowich, as administrator, etc.
S. Livingston Samuels, for the appellant.
Arthur Furber, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Patterson, P. J.:
I concur in the view expressed by Mr. Justice Ingraham, "that when this accounting administrator accepted the letters of administration issued to him,' he was chargeable with the amount of this indebtedness represented by the notes and checks of the firm of which he was a member as'so much money in his hands for the usual purposes of administration." I do not, however, concur in the view that when the letters of Julius Ablowich were revoked before the estate was administered and he turned the notes and obligations of his firm over to Iris successor, as ad minis trator, and those evidences of debt were accepted by such successor, that thereby Julius Ablowich ceased to be chargeable with the amount of the indebtedness of his firm to the estate. If by reason of his appointment as administrator he became chargeable with the amount of the various obligations of his firm, that was a situation in which he was placed by the law. He could not discharge himself from it by turning over the evidences of his own indebtedness to his successor, nor could his successor discharge him by the acceptance of such evidence of indebtedness. If by his becoming administrator, the debt of Julius Ablowich to the estate is to be regarded as assets in his hands, he must be charged with such assets in his account and can only be discharged in the manner provided by law. It seems to me that this is not a case in which the doctrine of the election of inconsistent remedies by the present admistrator applies.
I think the decree of the surrogate confirming the report of the referee overruling the objections to the account of Julius Ablowich should be reversed, with costs, and the proceeding remitted for further action.
Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred; Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., dissented in part.