¶1The statute directs that the trustees in making a distribution of the moneys in their hands “ shall first pay all debts that may be owing by the debtor as guardian, executor, administrator or trustee.” 2 R. S., 47, § 34. The objection urged against this claim is, that as Faulkner had not been qualified he was not executor at the time the money was received. 2 R. S., 71, § 15, 16, Thomas vs. Cameron ; 16 Wend., 579. In the matter of Stevenson, 3 Paige, 420. But the answer is, that when Faulkner qualified as executor, his authority related back, and legalized the payments which had previously been made to him. Priest vs. Watkins, 2 Hill, 225. He afterwards held the money, and it was a debt against him as executor. The claim to preference must be allowed.
1 How. Pr. 207
In re Faulkner
Decided June 15, 1845
New York Supreme Court · decided 1845-06-15
April special term. Petition of James Finley and Thomas Faulkner, executors of the last will and testament of Robert Elliott, deceased, of the city of JVew York, and William, D. Green, of the county of Oneida, in behalf of themselves and the other creditors of Thomas Faulkner, an absconding or concealed debtor ; presented to this court for direction to the trustees of Thomas Faulkner in regard to paying over moneys in their hands, as such trustees.—On the 12th July, 1842,…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1877
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1845-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →