Case Name: Matter of the Application of George Denyse and Ella I. Denyse for the Revocation of Letters Testamentary Granted to Mary Heist, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Philip Heist, Deceased
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-03
Citations: 62 Misc. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Application of George Denyse and Ella I. Denyse for the Revocation of Letters Testamentary Granted to Mary Heist, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Philip Heist, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
Matter of the Application of George Denyse and Ella I. Denyse for the Revocation of Letters Testamentary Granted to Mary Heist, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Philip Heist, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,
March, 1909.)
Infants — Disabilities in general — Capacity to institute legal proceedings.
Surrogates’ Courts — Procedure and review — Petitions — Parties — Infant joined with adult.
Where proceedings have been commenced, to revoke letters testamentary granted to an executor, by the joint petition of an infant legatee and her father who is also a legatee, but for a nominal amount, the petition will not be dismissed on the ground that one of the petitioners is, by reason of infancy, incapable of maintaining the proceeding.
Proceeding to revoke letters testamentary.
Henry M. Dater, for petitioners.
David M. Neuberger, for executrix, respondent.
Edward J. Fanning, special guardian.

Opinion:
Ketcham, S.
Proceedings to revoke letters testamentary have been commenced by joint petition of- an infant legatee and her'father, who is also a legatee, but for a nominal amount.
The infant has no guardian, general or special, and makes her petition in her own name and behalf.
The motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground that one of the petitioners is by reason of infancy incapable of maintaining it, must be denied.
The questions presented by the motion were laid by Surrogate Coffin, in 1884 (Matter of Watson, 2 Dem. 642), and his views there expressed have remained without dissent.
Let order be settled providing for the filing and service of answer, and setting the case for trial.
Decreed accordingly.