Case Name: In the Matter of the Appointment of John Z. Twichell, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Respondent. William D. Tyndall, as General Guardian of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-01-09
Citations: 117 A.D. 301
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Appointment of John Z. Twichell, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Respondent. William D. Tyndall, as General Guardian of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Appointment of John Z. Twichell, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Respondent. William D. Tyndall, as General Guardian of Eston E. Devore, an Infant, Appellant.
Third Department,
January 9, 1907.
Guardian—application by former guardian to remove successor — application refused when interest of infant not involved.
When an attorney, who is also general guardian of an infant, has petitioned for a judicial settlement of his accounts and for the appointment of a successor and the latter has been appointed, an application to remove the new guardian should not be granted when it appears that it is made by the former guardian solely because the second guardian contested his right to compensation as attorney, and the proceeding is not brought in the interest of the infant.
Appeal by William D. Tyndall, as general guardian of Eston E. Devore, an infant, from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Sullivan, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 30th day of December, 1905, denying his motion for the revocation of letters of guardianship theretofore issued to John Z. Twichell.
Walter A. Barton, for the appellant.
' Pa/rsons, Closson do Mcllvaine [ William A. Camochan of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
In an opinion in Matter of Tyndall (117 App. Div. 294), the decision of which is handed down concurrently with the decision in this case, the facts are substantially stated as to the manner in which the respondent was appointed as general guardian. The application for his removal by the appellant was made upon various grounds. The application is not brought in the method provided by sections 2832 and 2833 of the Code of Civil Procedure and moreover it does not seem to be made in behalf of the infant. After the decree appointing Twichell as guardian this appellant petitioned for. a settlement of his accounts as general guardian, alleging the due appointment of Twichell as his successor and cited him to attend the settlement of his accounts and asking leave to turn over to his successor the securities and,amounts diie the estate. In. the petition for the accounting of June thirteenth he.had requested a settlement of his accounts' and that he be allowed to resign and that a successor be appointed. It is only after the present guardian had refused to' recognize his claim for compensation and was successfully contesting the. same that this application was made, as appears clearly, not in the interest of the infant'hut in his own interest, that he may delay passing over the moneys which are found due from him to the estate. For these reasons the surrogate was authorized' to deny his motion, and the • order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred; Parker, P. J., not sitting.
Order affirmed,'with ten dollars costs and disbursements.