Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Rainey
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-10
Citations: 5 Misc. 367
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Rainey.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 367–368

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Estate of Rainey.
(Surrogate’s Court—Orange County,
October, 1893.)
'The equitable interest of the next of kin in the estate of an intestate is property which passes by operation of law to a receiver duly appointed.
The greater part of an estate, amounting to $1,700, was paid upon a claim presented by the father of the administrators, for board of deceased covering a period of eighteen years. A receiver in supplementary proceedings of one of the administrators objected to so much of said claim as was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Held, that the receiver was not estopped by the act of the administrator in admitting the claim, and that the administrator should only be credited with so much of the claim as was not barred.
Deceased died February 10,1891, intestate, leaving Samuel R. Whitten and John R. Whitten, her grandsons, her only next of kin, who were appointed administrators of her estate on the 17th day of September, 1891. On the 27th day of October, 1891, A. V. N. Powelson was duly appointed receiver of the said Samuel R. Whitten in supplementary proceedings. -On March 23, 1893, said-receiver filed his petition with the •surrogate, praying that said administrators be required to .account.
By the account filed on the return of the citation, it appeared that the estate received by the administrators amounted to .about $1,700, and that in September, 1892, they had paid over the whole of it, except about $200, which had been used in paying funeral expenses and expenses of administration, to their father, Frank Whitten, upon a claim presented by him for board of deceased for a period of about eighteen years. To this item of the account objection was made on behalf of the receiver.
Charles G. Dill, for receiver.
O’Niel & Royce, for administrators.

Opinion:
Coleman, S.
At the time of the appointment of the receiver the legal title to the estate of the deceased, was vested in her administrators, but her next of lcin had an equitable interest in so much of the property as should remain after the payment of her debts and the expenses of the administration. This equitable interest is property which could be legally assigned by the next of kin, even before settlement of the administrators' account, and is property which would pass by operation of law to a receiver, duly appointed.
By the appointment of the receiver the interest of Samuel R. Whitten in the estate of the deceased, as one of her next of kin, was severed from his interest and duty as an administrator of the estate, and no improper act of his thereafter could defeat or prejudice the right which he had had as one of the next of kin. In other words, his act of allowing the whole of his father's claim, even though an honest debt of the deceased, when he should have only admitted so much of it as was not barred by the statute, cannot estop the receiver, as the representative of his interest in the estate, from objecting to his account, because of any theory that the receiver would be debarred from complaining of the act of the person through whom he received his title. It Was a duty which the law imposed upon the administrators to plead the statute against so much of the claim of Frank Whitten as was barred by limitation, and, having failed to do this, they can only be credited upon this accounting with the payment of so much as was a legal claim against this estate.
John R. Whitten, the other next of kin, consenting to the account as filed, the administrators will, therefore, only be charged upon this accounting with $453.20, Samuel R.'s distributive interest.