Breslin v. Smyth
Opinion of the Court
This petitioner alleges that, on October 13th, 1884, he recovered a judgment in the Superior court against Thomas Smyth, administrator, c. t. a., of this decedent’s estate. It appears that, by an order of the Surrogate, entered twenty days before the recovery of such judgment, Smyth’s letters as such administrator were revoked. This order of revocation contained no provision for the accounting of the deposed administrator, or for his delivery into this court, or to his successor, of the money or property of the estate in his hands.
The petitioner now asks for relief in various forms: •—that Smyth be directed to account, and to make deposit of the property of this estate, and to pay the petitioner the amount of the aforesaid judgment, and that he be restrained from using, until the further order of this court, any funds of the estate still in his possession. Without discussing the propriety of thus including in one petition an application so multifa.rious, I am clear that such application must, in all its parts, be denied. Section 2603 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the Surrogate discretionary authority to provide, in a decree revoking the letters of an executor or administrator, for an accounting and for the deposit of such property of the estate as such executor or administrator may have in his hands; but, as has been stated already, the order whereby this respondent was removed from office contains no such provision. Section 2605 specifies the persons who may enforce such an accounting and deposit, and among them such as occupy the attitude of this petitioner are not included.
Petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.