New York Court of Appeals, 1927

In re the Estate of Meyer

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 1, 1927 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

155 N.E. 913; 244 N.Y. 598; 1927 N.Y. LEXIS 1138 (North Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Wedemann v. United States Trust Co. (N.Y. 1932)
In re the Estate of Nielsen (New York Surrogate's Court 1965)
In re the Estate of Meier (New York Surrogate's Court 1962)
In re the Accounting of Gordon (New York Surrogate's Court 1944)
In re the Estate of Cooper (New York Surrogate's Court 1944)
In re the Estate of Lamborn (New York Surrogate's Court 1938)
In re the Estate of Marinano (New York Surrogate's Court 1936)
In re the Estate of Cornell (N.Y. 1935)
Howard v. Marlin-Rockwell Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1935)
In re the Estate of Cornell (New York Surrogate's Court 1933)
In re the Estate of Cohen (New York Surrogate's Court 1933)
In re the Estate of Van Bokkelen (New York Surrogate's Court 1931)
Wilson v. Beard (2d Cir. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

An ancillary executor being named in this State, what might be the rights of a non-resident creditor of the estate, should the surrogate elect to adjudicate as to the claims of residents we do not attempt to consider. That the surrogate may entertain and direct the payment of his claim we are clear (Surrogate’s Court Act, sec. 165). Equally clear is it that the surrogate may refuse to pass upon all claims, whether of residents . or non-residents. The local assets must then be remitted to the foreign executor to be administered and distributed by him. That the surrogate has done here. No question of discrimination in favor of domestic creditors is before us. Whether this course shall be adopted is a matter of judicial discretion. Such action was not without justification, and it may, therefore, not be reviewed and reversed by us.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.