42 Misc. 169 | N.Y. Sur. Ct. | 1903
This proceeding is before the court upon a, petition by the administrator for a final judicial settlement of his accounts as such and upon the objections filed by Nelson C. Robinson, one of the next of kin of the decedent and upon the motions by the attorney for the contestant to strike out the testimony of the administrator relating to the,alleged payment to ¡Nelson C. Robinson and upon a further motion to dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that in so far as it is sought to set off an alleged indebtedness of the contestant against the amount due him, that indebtedness upon the part of the said contestant to the decedent’s estate being denied by him, the surrogate has no jurisdiction.
Throughout the argument in the brief filed by the contestant, the idea of his attorney seems to be that the court has no jurisdiction to try the question of the debt due the decedent’s estate unless a stipulation shall have been entered into as is provided 'by the Code of Civil Procedure or unless an account of the debt has been presented to and either allowed or objected' to by the legal representative of the decedent.
However, this proceeding is not being prosecuted by the claimant endeavoring to establish the validity of the claim which he alleges to hold against decedent’s estate but is a proceeding wherein the administrator seeks to justify payments made by him in the distribution of the decedent’s estate.
Though a judicial officer with limited and prescribed powers, the surrogate in a proceeding before him having, for its object the settlement of an executor’s 'account and to obtain a decree directing the distribution of the funds in his hands, and with all parties in interest present, may construe the provisions of a will whenever such a determination is necessary in order to make a decree of- distribution. Code Civ. Pro., § 2472; Matter of Verplanck, 91 N. Y. 439. Such a jurisdiction is one which is incidental to the office of the surrogate and which places clearly the authority conferred upon him by statute, and if the surrogate is thus entitled to construe the provisions of a will in order to determine the distributive shares and interests,
This is an application for the final judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrator .and it would seem from the opinion of the court in Riggs v. Cragg, 89 N. Y. 479, that the Surrogate’s Court can exercise the powers prescribed by statute and such incidental powers as are requisite to- the exercising of the powers expressly given, and that having all parties in interest before him upon this accounting the surrogate is entitled to settle and determine all questions concerning any debt, claim, legacy, bequest or distributive share, to whom the same shall be payable and the sums to be paid to each person interested.
As to whether the given transaction is to be considered as a payment is a question which is for the determination of the surrogate and as it may or may not be determined in the administrator’s favor the administrator may present his evidence and be heard before the court.
The motions made by the contestant’s attorney are, therefore, denied. Further proceedings will be had upon this accounting before the surrogate at his office in Carmel, N. Y., on the 28th day of December, 1903, at ten o’clock in the forenoon of that day.
Decreed accordingly.