Case Name: Vanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh et al.
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1852-04
Citations: 6 N.Y. 190
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 184–192

Head Matter:
Vanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh et al.
Conclusiveness of surrogate’s decree. — Parties to receiver’s bill.
The decree of a surrogate, admitting a will to probate, is conclusive, as to the personalty, in a collateral proceeding, though it have but a single subscribing witness.
The judgment-debtor is a necessary party to a bill by the receiver of his estate, to reach his equitable interest in a fund held in trust for him.
Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the third district, where a decree, made upon a receiver’s bill, had been vacated, on a rehearing, and the plaintiff’s bill dismissed, with costs.
This was a receiver’s bill, filed in the late court of chancery, to subject the equitable interest of William P. Van Alstyne, a judgment-debtor, in a mortgage of $2000, given by Abraham P. Van Alstyne, one of the defendants, to John J. Van Valkenburgh, the other defendant, in trust for the said William P. Van Alstyne, to the payment of certain judgments obtained against him. Van Burén and Garner having obtained judgments against William P. Van Alstyne, and executions thereon having been returned unsatisfied, filed a creditors’ bill to reach * 191 1 e(lu^a^e assets) *wherein one Trimper was J appointed receiver, to whom the judgment-debtor executed an assignment of all his estate, real and personal, things in action, equitable interests and effects, without any reservation. Trimper commenced this suit, but died after decree at special term, and the present plaintiff was appointed receiver and substituted as plaintiff in the cause.
In November 1837, Angelica Van Alstyne, the mother of Abraham P. Van Alstyne and of William ■ P. Van Alstyne, the judgment-debtor, being possessed of an estate of $6000 or $7000 in money, and other personal property, made her last will and testament, whereby, after certain specific bequests, she gave the residue of hei estate to her said two sons, to be equally divided between them, and directed the sum of $1000 (with power to the executor to increase the same to $1500 or $2000) to be put at interest by the executor, John J. Van Valken-burgh, on bond and mortgage, the interest to be paid annually, by the executor, to her son, William, “during his natural lifetime, for his comfortable support and maintenance,” and at his decease, the principal to go to his lawful heirs or children, if any should survive him, and if none, then to his brother Abraham, his heirs and assigns. The executor was also empowered to pay the principal sum to William, at any time, if, in his judgment, it would be wise and prudent to do so. The will was duly executed by the testatrix, but in the presence only of a single subscribing witness.
After the decease of the testatrix, in August 1838, the will was presented for probate to the surrogate of Columbia county, who, after citation to the heirs and next of kin, *and on their consent in writing that it might be admitted to probate and recorded as a L will of personal estate, and the testimony of the single subscribing witness, made a decree, declaring the will to be valid, and its execution sufficiently provedand thereupon, letters testamentary were issued to the defendant Van Valkenburgh.
On the 1st April 1839, the executor, Van Valkenburgh, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by the testatrix, loaned to Abraham P. Van Alstyne, the sum of $2000 of William’s share of the estate; and received, as security therefor, the bond and mortgage in question. It was agreed, that William should reside in his brother’s family, and that his support should balance the interest on the mortgage.
The complainant insisted, that the will, notwithstanding the decree of the surrogate, was void, and that the money invested was the absolute property of William. The bill prayed that the will might be declared void; the complainant’s right to the bond and' mortgage established ; and that the sum or the proceeds thereof might be paid over to him in- satisfaction of the judgments of Van Burén and Garner. The defendants contended, that the decree of the surrogate was conclusive, except on a direct appeal therefrom; or, if it were not, that Mrs. Van Alstyne died intestate, and an administrator of her estate was a necessary party to this suit; that William P. Van Alstyne was also a necessary party; and that if the complainant was entitled to any relief, his remedy was at law, and not in equity. They also denied the jurisdiction of a court of equity to declare the invalidity of the will, on the grounds set forth in the bill.
' *The cause was heard on the pleadings and -* proofs, at special term, and the court (Watson, J.) made a decree granting the relief prayed for; on a rehearing at general term, however, this decree was vacated, and the bill dismissed with costs; whereupon, the plaintiff took this appeal.
Hogeboom, for the appellant.
Reynolds, for the respondents.
Wetmore v. Parker, 52 N. Y. 450.

Opinion:
*Gardiner, J.
— The judgment of the surro- - gate, in admitting the will in this case (which relates only to personal property) to probate, is the decision of a court of competent and exclusive jurisdiction, which cannot be impeached collaterally. (2 R. S. 61, § 29; 7 Paige 397; 3 Barb. Oh. 481.) The 29th section of the statute (2 R., S. 61) declaring the probate of wills of personal property conclusive, does not necessarily conflict with the 18th section of the act of 1837, which makes the 15th section of the revised statutes, in relation to wills of real estate, applicable to wills of personal property. The section last mentioned provides, " that wills proved according to the previous provisions of the act, shall have a certificate indorsed thereon, signed by the surrogate, and attested by his seal- of office, and may be read in evidence, without any further proof thereof." *" The record of such will, made as aforesaid, and the exemplification of such record by the L surrogate in whose custody the same may be, shall be received in evidence, and shall be as effectual, in all cases, as the original will would be, if produced and proved, and may, in like manner, be repelled by contrary proof." The object of the provision was, to make the certificate of the surrogate, and the record of the will or an exemplification, prima facie evidence. The legislature have accordingly declared that such shall be their effect; and have placed them upon the same footing as the records and exemplifications of deeds. (3 Johns.. Gas. 236; Revisers' Notes to § 15, 3 R. S. 629.)
But the probate of a will, by which is meant the evidence, jurisdictional and otherwise, presented to the court, together with the judicial determination of the surrogate upon that evidence,- is, as to personal property, conclusive, notwithstanding. It is in the nature of a proceeding in rem; to which all persons having an interest in the subject of litigation may make themselves parties, and are consequently bound by the decree. (4 Paige 623.)
II. If the will should be avoided, on account of its defective execution, the trust-fund established by Mrs. Van Alstyne for her son, would fall into the mass of her property, to be distributed in the due course of administration, under the supervision of the surrogate. Here, no administrator has been appointed, and the complain ants, as judgment-creditors, have no right to enforce a distribution, where the estate is not represented. (3 Barb. Oh. 479.)
III. In any view of-the case,-whether the trust is sustained or avoided, William P. Van Alstyne is a necessary party, either as cestui que trust, or as one entitled to a distributive share of his mother's estate. This objection is distinctly made in the answer, and the defendants may, consequently, avail themselves of it, with the same effect as though they had demurred to the bill for that cause.
For the reasons suggested, without adverting to other * 200 1 9-ues^ons *ma-de upon the argument, the decree -1 of the supreme'court should be affirmed.