Case Name: RUGGIERO et al. v. TUFANI
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05-29
Citations: 104 N.Y.S. 691
Docket Number: 
Parties: RUGGIERO et al. v. TUFANI.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 104
Pages: 691–696

Head Matter:
RUGGIERO et al. v. TUFANI.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 29, 1907.)
1. Work and Labor—Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action for materials furnished and services rendered in the burial of defendant’s son, evidence considered, and held sufficient to support a .finding that defendant ordered the materials and services.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Work and Labor, § 55.]
2. Contracts—Actions—Defenses.
The fact that undertakers have been paid the amount which the Surrogate's Court deemed the reasonable funeral expenses of a decedent, in view of his condition and station in life, does not affect their right to sue for the balance upon an express contract made with a third person.
3. Money Paid—Executors and Administrators—Liabilities of Estate-Funeral Expenses—Claim by One Under Express Agreement.
One against whom the full amount of an express contract for funeral expenses has been recoveréd may recover from the decedent’s estate such part of the contract price paid as would constitute a reasonable expenditure for that purpose.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 35, Money Paid, §§ 1, 12.]
Giidersieeve, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.
Action by Francesco Ruggiero and another against Paride Tufani. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GILDERSEEEVE, P. J., and SEABURY and BRADY, JJ.
Arpad A. Kremer, for appellant.
Ullo, Ruebsamen & Yuzzolino, for respondents.

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
The plaintiffs furnished materials and rendered services relative to the burial of a son of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the materials and services were of the reasonable value of $468. The widow of the deceased having been appointed administratrix by the Surrogate's Court of New York county, the plaintiffs presented their claim against the estate. The Surrogate's Court determined that the plaintiffs' claim, "to the amount hereinbefore stated ($300), is a .reasonable charge as against the estate for the funeral expenses of said decedent." The sum of $300 was paid the plaintiffs by the estate, and the present action was brought against the defendant for $168, the difference between the alleged market price of the services and materials and the amount with which the estate of the decedent was charged by the Surrogate's Court. It appears from the testimony that the defendant ordered the materials and services which the plaintiffs supplied. This fact has been found by the trial justice, and the evidence is sufficient to support the finding.
There was no material contradiction between the testimony given by Ruggiero before the referee and that which he gave upon this trial. When testifying before the referee he said that the defendant had selected all the materials, which were subsequently furnished. It is true that he testified that nothing was said as to who would pay for the services and materials; but this apparent contradiction was explained, when it was shown that Ruggiero had two interviews with the defendant, and that nothing was said as to who should pay for the funeral expenses at the first interview. This was the only interview in reference to which Ruggiero was questioned before the referee. An examination of the testimony of this witness given upon the trial, and that given before the referee, discloses no reason why his testimony should be characterized as false. His testimony was corroborated by that of another witness, while the unsupported testimony of the defendant, contradicting Ruggiero, was weak and inconclusive. The defendant admitted that he told Ruggiero, in reference to the funeral, with "what you do I am satisfied"; and, when asked specifically whether he requested Ruggiero to attend to the funeral, he replied, merely, "I don't remember;" and, when pressed further upon this point, he anwered, "I told you I forgot if I told him so."
The fact that the plaintiffs presented their claim for payment against the estate of the decedent does not prevent them from suing upon their contract 'obligation, when the whole or a part of the debt due is not paid by the estate. When one dies, leaving an estate, the duty of burial is upon the executor. Patterson v. Patterson, 59 N. Y. 574, 17 Am. Rep. 384. Under the statute at present existing an executor or administrator must pay, out of the first moneys received, "the reasonable funeral expenses of the decedent, and the same shall be preferred to all other debts and claims against the deceased." Section 2729, subd. 3, Code Civ. Proc. The executor is also prohibited from inteference with the estate until after probate, except that he may discharge funeral expenses. 2 Rev. St. (1st Ed.) p. 71, pt. 2, c. 6, tit. 2, § 16. "Prom this duty springs a legal obligation, and from the obligation the law implies a promise to him who, in the absence or neglect of the executor, not officiously, but in the necessity of the case, directs a burial and incurs and pays such expenses thereof as is reasonable." Patterson v. Patterson, supra. It has also been held that, before subdivision 3 was added to section 2729 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by chapter 293, p. 755, of the Laws of 1901, an executor is not liable for funeral expenses, when the funeral was ordered by and credit given to another person. Lucas v. Hessen, 13 Daly, 347; 3 Williams on Executors (7th Am. Ed.) p. 303. But, assuming this to be the present rule, it does not follow that one who makes an express contract to pay for funeral expenses is discharged from the obligation of his contract because the estate has paid a part of the amount which he contracted to pay. The undertaker furnishing the materials cannot, of course, recover twice; but, when the estate has paid him a part of the debt incurred by another, he may recover upon the express contract for the balance of the debt. When the estate pays the undertaker what the Surrogate's Court deems the reasonable funeral expenses, in view of the condition and station in life of the decedent, the right of the undertaker to sue for the balance upon an express contract made with a third person is not affected or impaired. The undertaker could, doubtless, have sued the defendant in the first instance upon the express contract, and have recovered the full amount of the contract debt. In this event the defendant could have recovered from the estate such part of the contract price which he paid the plaintiffs as would constitute a reasonable expenditure for this purpose against the decedent's estate.
As to whether or not the plaintiff, if he .failed to recover from the defendant the full amount of the contract price, could have sued the state for the balance is not now before us for decision. A determination of this question would, doubtless, require a consideration of the present statutory provisions as to the liability of an estate, to pay for funeral expenses. Whatever the rule may be on that subject, it is clear that the contract obligation, which the defendant was under to the plaintiffs, cannot be impaired by the fact that the estate has paid the plaintiffs something on account of this debt
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
BRADY, J., concurs,