In re the Accounting of the Empire Trust Co.
Cases that cite this one
63 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Estate of Penney (New York Surrogate's Court 1969)
- In re the Estate of Gilford (New York Surrogate's Court 1935)
- in Re Tom Thomas, Dan Sheehan and Marc Culp, Individually and as Successor to the Interest of Thomas, Sheehan & Culp, L.L.P (Tex. App. 2016)
- In re Trust Created by Hyde (N.Y. 2010)
- Williams v. JP Morgan & Co., Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Lee v. Lee (Tex. App. 2001)
- Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Chase Manhattan Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- DiMauro v. Pavia (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1979)
- Bates v. Scottsbluff National Bank (Neb. 1973)
- In re the Accounting of Genovese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
- In re the Estate of Chapin (New York Surrogate's Court 1939)
- MCDONALD, IDALYNN LUPPINO, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Carl R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Trusts for McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Trusts for McDonald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Settlement of the Final Account of Proceedings of McCluskey (New York Surrogate's Court 2012)
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Estate of Bloomingdale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Estate of Saxton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- In re the Estate of Saxton (New York Surrogate's Court 1998)
- In re the Estate of Janes (N.Y. 1997)
- In re the Estate of Janes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- In re the Estate of Janes (New York Surrogate's Court 1995)
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
Corporate stock appraised at the date of the testator’s death at a value of $200 per share was held by the executors until it became valueless. Their course was dictated or at least influenced by the expressed wish of the testator that the stock should be held as part of a trust fund. Towards the widow, who was a beneficiary of the trust fund, and who acquiesced in, if indeed she did not encourage retention of the securities, failure to sell was a misfortune, not a wrong. So the Appellate Division held. It also held that towards the testator’s infant daughter, who was entitled to a one-ninth share of the estate, the executors were under a *521 duty to sell the stock within a reasonable time, and that in the exercise of reasonable care the executors could and should have sold the stock at the price of $200 per share not later than May 10th, 1920. Though perhaps a trier of the facts might have reached opposite conclusions, the findings of the Appellate Division are not against the weight of evidence.
Payment by the executors to the infant must be confined to the amount the infant would have received if the stock had been sold at the price of $200 per share on May 10th, 1920. Her share of the estate has been fixed at the sum of $22,353, and the executors have been directed to pay her that amount, with interest from May 10th, 1920. The Federal estate tax was a charge upon the entire estate, and if the stock had been sold the infant’s share would have been reduced by a proportionate part of the tax. If deduction has not been made in the decree for the proportionate part of the tax assessed against the estate, including the taxes which have not been paid and are perhaps not collectible, then such deduction should now be made.
The infant has received income derived from dividends paid to the estate on the corporate stock held by it. To the extent that such income was derived from dividends, which accrued to the estate after May 10th, 1920, the infant has profited by the retention of the stock. That profit must be offset against the interest which the executors have been directed to pay, and the decree must be modified accordingly. The infant was entitled to a proportionate part of the dividends which accrued upon the stock before that date either as an accretion to her share of the estate or as income thereon. Income derived from such dividends should be offset against interest only if the sum which the executors have been directed to pay includes such income as an accretion to the infant’s share of the estate.
Even though the Surrogate’s Court Act does not *522 specifically authorize the court to charge the executors personally with costs and allowance, it has the power to impose that charge against them as an expense caused by their wrong. (See Matter of Hidden, 243 N. Y. 499.)
Proceedings remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the entry of a decree fixing the amount payable by the executors in accordance with this memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.