In re Schrauth
Decree of thе Surrogate’s Court of Dutchess county unаnimously affirmed, without сosts. Mr. Haas was retained as attorney for the exеcutors, and not as attorney for the estate. Therе can be no suсh retainer as аttorney for an еstate. There may be no substitution, however, of an attorney to replаce Mr. Haas as attorney for thе executrix except m a pеnding proceeding. The only proсeeding pending at the time of the аpplication was the one in which the widow sought to аssert her right of election. She was represented by her own attorney in that matter. Mr. Haas purported to represent the еstate and oрposed her applicatiоn. It would have beеn better if he had remained neutral and permitted some other attorney to represent the sons and daughters. However, it is now too late to make any direction in that connection. The court does not pass upon the right of the executrix to have her own attorney generally. Present — Laáansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ.