Case Name: Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Thomas W. Evans, Deceased
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-01
Citations: 33 Misc. 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Thomas W. Evans, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 567–569

Head Matter:
Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Thomas W. Evans, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,
January, 1901.)
Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York — Contestants of a will have an absolute right to withdraw their objections, notwithstanding protests of their attorneys.
It has long been the practice of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York to permit contestants of wills to withdraw their objections, notwithstanding the protests of their attorneys claiming liens for services..
Proceedings upon probate of a will. Motion to overrule objections, etc.
Wolcott G-. Lane, for proponent.
Crane & Lockwood, for Edward A. Crane, individually and as executor.
J. Noble Hayes, for David Keane, opposed.

Opinion:
Thomas, S.
It has long been the practice of this court to permit
contestants in proceedings to admit wills to probate to withdraw their objections, notwithstanding the protests of their attorneys claiming liens for services. An unreported memorandum of Ransom, S., states the rule and places it upon the ground that, in probate cases, the surrogate has special powers and duties imposed upon him by the statute, which vest in him the control, to a great extent, of the proceedings, irrespective of the wishes of the parties or their attorneys, and that the rights and interests of other parties require that a contest should not be continued to be prosecuted for the mere purpose of determining a controversy between one of the parties in interest and his attorney. Matter of Peter Wittner, Surr. Decs., 1890, 464. I am not disposed to overrule this decision, and, independent of it, I greatly doubt that the filing of objections to the probate of a will can be treated as the assertion of an affirmative cause of action or as an answer containing a counter-claim such as to require the establishment of a lien by the attorney under section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However this may be, the agreement in writing made by the attorney, Mr. Keane, with his clients, which constituted his authority to appear and contest in their behalf, expressly provided that the parties of the second part, the clients, " shall be at liberty at any stage of the case, either before, during or after suit commenced, to settle or compromise upon such terms as they may desire as to their respective interests." This reservation, so explicitly made and assented to, must control, and the remedy of the attorney, which must be against the results of the compromise, must be sought in some other tribunal. These considerations require the granting of the application to strike out the objections and to vacate the order for the examination of the non-resident witness to the "will, made upon the footing of the objections. There being now no one before the court entitled to resist probate of the will offered, the application to permit the witness who testified before the commissioner in Paris to sign his deposition before the probate clerk must also be granted.
Decreed accordingly.