Case Name: Matter of the Estate of Robert H. Arkenburgh, Deceased
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-07
Citations: 17 Misc. 543
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Estate of Robert H. Arkenburgh, Deceased.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 543–544

Head Matter:
Matter of the Estate of Robert H. Arkenburgh, Deceased.
(Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County,
July, 1896.)
Appeal — Stay — Undertaking.
Unless an appeal from a surrogate's decree is taken by the executor, administrator,, trustee, guardian or other person appointed by the Surrogate’s Court, no undertaking except the one for $250 required by section 2577 can be required, and the giving of such undertaking perfects the appeal and operates as a stay of proceedings to enforce the decree.
Motion for distribution under a decree of the surrogate unless a proper undertaking to stay proceedings is given. .
Robert E. Little, for motion.
Charles E. Souther and John Larkin, opposed.

Opinion:
Tompkins, S.
On the 12th day of December, 1895, a decree was made' settling the account of Eliza J. Arkenburgh, as executrix, and Oliver M. Arkenburgh, as executor of the will of R. H. Arkenburgh, deceased.
Under that decree the executor is entitled to receive upwards of $16,000; in all the sum of about $57,Q00 is directed to be distributed.
An appeal has been takeh.by two of the legatees, the executor and other legatee not appealing.
An undertaking for $250 to perfect the appeal under section. 2577 has been given.
A motion is now made by the executor for distribution under the decree, unless a proper undertaking is given to stay the execution and enforcement of the decree.
The question is: Does the undertaking already given effect a stay?
Section 2577 of the Code provides for the undertaking which has been given, and which is necessary to render the appeal effectual.
The only other undertaking provided for on an appeal from a decree of the Surrogate's Court is in cases of appeals by executors, administrators, trustees, guardians, or other persons appointed by the Surrogate's Court. Then to stay the enforcement of the decree, there must be an additional undertaking.
Counsel for- the executor and the motion insists that .section 2580 gives the surrogate discretion to require an additional undertaking and fix .the amount thereof. These aré the words relied upon: " In every other case it (the amount) must he fixed by the surrogate or by a judge of the appellate court, who may require proof," etc:
These words, however, clearly refer to undertakings required of executors, administrators, etc., and not to any other appellant.
The case of Steinback v. Diepenbrock, 5 App. Div. 208, cited in support of the motion, is not applicable';' there the appeal was from a judgment of the Supreme Court. '
.There is authority, for requiring .an undertaking to indemnify a respondent against loss and damage in such a case that is not found in the provisions in reference to appeals from Surrogates' Courts.
My conclusion is that unless the appeal is by the executor, administrator, etc., no undertaking can be required except the one for $250, required by section 2577, and that the giving of that undertaking on this appeal perfects the appeal, and hence, under section 2584, operates as a stay of proceedings to enforce, the decree. •
Motion denied,, with $10 costs.