Case Name: In the Matter of the Accounting of John H. Smith, as Executor, etc., of John T. Smith, Deceased
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-07
Citations: 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 606
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Accounting of John H. Smith, as Executor, etc., of John T. Smith, Deceased.
Judges: Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 96
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Accounting of John H. Smith, as Executor, etc., of John T. Smith, Deceased.
Decree affirmed, with costs to respondent, to be paid put of the estate.—

Opinion:
Dykman, J.:
This proceeding was instituted in the Surrogate's Court of the county of Rockland, by John H. Smith, one of the executors of the estate of John T. Smith, deceased, for ah accounting of his proceedings as such executor, based upon a petition filed in the Surrogate's Court on the 26th day of June, 1891, before George 'W. Wirant, then surrogate of Rockland county. All the parties interested were duly cited. Testimony was introduced and taken before Surrogate Wirant, and before anything further was done he became ill, and William McCauley, district attorney of Rockland county, became acting surrogate, and a few days before .the close of his office as district attorney, he signed a decree in this proceeding. A. S. Tompkins, who had been counsel for the executor, then became surrogate, and a motion was made before him to set aside or resettle the decree of District Attorney McCauley, on the ground that it did not conform to tho facts as disclosed by the testimony. That motion was certified to Prank Comesky, then district attorney of Rockland county, hy reason of the disability of TompLins on account of his connection with the case as counsel. Comesky vacated the previous decree and signed a decree in conformity to the findings previously made by him, and from that decree the present appeal was taken. The last decree allows the executor several payments which he had made which were disallowed by the first decree. In other respects the two decrees are practically the same. The disbursements allowed to the executor were all actually made, and there is no sufficient reason why they should not be allowed. The largest claim is the sum paid to the widow for her right of dower. Both the executors charge themselves with the whole sum received for the real property sold, and as they were obliged to pay the widow, who had a right of dower in the premises, it follows that the sum so paid to her must be deducted from the amount they received. The power to open and modify the first decree is expressly conferred by subdivision 6 of section 2481 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents, to be paid from the estate.
Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.