Case Name: In re McNALLY'S ESTATE
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05
Citations: 124 N.Y.S. 864
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re McNALLY'S ESTATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 124
Pages: 864–864

Head Matter:
(68 Misc. Rep. 8.)
In re McNALLY'S ESTATE.
(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,
May, 1910.)
Executors and Administrators (§ 470 )—Accounting—Delay.
Where deceased administrator remained alive and in office 20 years after the time when he might have been required to account, but the distributees were of his own family, there is no ground for finding that there was any unreasonable delay in asserting their right to an accounting.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 2014-2017; Dec. Dig. § 470.*]
In the matter of the estate of Matilda McNally. Proceedings on accounting by an administrator. Decree rendered.
Goldie & Gumm, for administratrix de bonis non of Matilda Mc-Nally, deceased.
Robert O’Byrne, for Ellen T. McNally, executrix of John J. Mc-Nally, deceased, administrator of Matilda McNally, deceased.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’? Indexes

Opinion:
KETCHAM, S.
The account must be charged with $904.34, which came into the hands of the administrator of the original estate on November 8, 1888, with interest thereon at the rate of four per cent. No credits against this sum Can be found.
There is no defense to the petitioner's claim for an accounting, either by reason of the statute of limitations (Matter of Asheim, 111 App. Div. 176, 97 N. Y. Supp. 607; Id., 185 N. Y. 609, 78 N. E. 1099), or the lapse of time (Treadwell v. Clark, 190 N. Y. 51, 60, 82 N. E. 505). The deceased administrator remained alive and in office for 20 years after the time when he might have been required to account; but the distributees were of his own family, and there is no ground for a finding that there was on their part any unreasonable delay in asserting their right to an accounting. Indeed, whether the equitable doctrine of laches, distinct from the statute of limitations, exists, or not, it is hard to imagine that the distributees of an estate can have waived their remedies by delay for a period during which the law has continued to assure them that no limitation upon their right could begin to run until the administrator had openly repudiated his trust.
The account will be settled accordingly.
Decreed accordingly.