Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Seth Whitney, Deceased
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-07-02
Citations: 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 899
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Seth Whitney, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 39
Pages: 899–899

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Estate of Seth Whitney, Deceased.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed July 2, 1891.)
Executors and administrators—Disputed claims.
A claim apparently barred by the statute, but claimed to have been revived by a payment, was presented to the executors in 1888, and rejected by them in 1890. Held, that- although it was a long time before it was finally rejected, it was never really admitted, and was properly considered a disputed claim and the accounting postponed until the determination of a reference thereof.
Appeal from the decision of the surrogate of Westchester county, suspending proceedings for an accounting until the determination of the validity of a claim against the estate.
Abram J. Miller, for app’lt; Franklin Couch, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
—The petitioner claims to hold a note for $600, upon which there is interest due from March 1,1886, against Seth Whitney, deceased. As such creditor he presented a petition asking for a judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrators. The administrators deny the debt. It appears that the claim was presented to the administrators in June, 1888, and it was finally rejected in July, 1890. The note was given in 1877, and was apparently barred by the statute of limitations when Whitney died. The claim is to be revived by a payment which is disputed. An administrator cannot allow a claim which is barred by the statute, and while it was a long time before the claim was finally rejected, it was never really admitted. Under the circumstances, the surrogate's order that the claim be deemed a disputed claim and the accounting postponed until after the claim is established was just and proper, and his decree should be affirmed, with costs.
Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.