Volume 2 — Redfield's Surrogate Reports

This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of Orton Stiles deceased. The facts upon which the decision turns are detailed in the opinion.

This was a proceeding for. the probate of the last will and testament of Morgan Norton, deceased. The will was offered for probate by Bhoda 0. Borton, the executrix therein named, and the principal legatee. The probate was opposed by Mary A. Borton, a daughter of the testator by a former wife. The will bore date, December 13th, 1861. The testator died in the month of September, 1872. The will was in the handwriting of the testator.

This accounting was a proceeding in behalf of Catherine Piper, to compel the executor to pay over to her a legacy of $1,500, which she alleged was due and payable by the provisions of the will. The testator duly made and published his will on the 29 th day of December, 1869. The third clause of the said will was as follows : a Third,.

This was a proceeding for the final settlement of the estate of James Bogers, deceased.

This was an application for the probate of the last will and testament of James Simpson, deceased. The testator died at the city of Newburgh, on the 14th day of March, 1870, having previously executed the paper now offered for probate as and for his last will and testament. He subscribed the paper by making his mark, thus : u James x Simpson, L. S.’’ Henry 0. Millspaugh and Cornelius Maher were the two subscribing witnesses.

This was a proceeding, for the probate of the last will and testament of John Olarkson Oolhoun, deceased. The deceased was the only surviving son of Commodore John Oolhoun, of Philadelpia. He left surviving him, his father, and Eosalie Oolhoun, Ms only sister. His mother died in 1851. At the time of Ms death he was about twenty-three, and Ms sister about sixteen years of age. He left an estate valued at at least forty thousand dollars.

This was a proceeding for a final settlement of the estate of Clarinda B. Goodrich, deceased. The only questions arose upon the construction of the following clauses in the will of the decedent.

This was a proceeding for the final settlement of the accounts of James E. Waterbary, executor of the last will and testament of Richard B. Edsall, deceased.

This was a petition to remove Harriet E, Swartwout from the guardianship of her children. Henry B. Swartwout, a resident of the town of Deer-park, in this county, died possessed of about $15,000, in personal estate, and a farm of about 180 acres, upon which at the time of his death, he resided. He left him surviving, his wife Harriet E. and their children, Harriet E. Isabella, and George H. All of the children were still under fourteen years of age.

This was a proceeding for the final accounting of the estate of William Case, deceased. The testator died at the town of Hamptonburgh in Orange County on the 19th day of December, 1868, having previously thereto executed his last will and testament which was duly proved and admitted to probate by the Surrogate of said County, on the 30th day of March, 1869. Elizabeth Case and George M. JSFewman qualified as executrix and executor therof.

This application was made in the matter of the accounting of Hannah Wallace and John J Cooper, administrator of Harvey Wallace, deceased. William Wallace, deceased, by his last will and testament appointed his son Harvey Wallace, also now deceased, his executor.

The deceased, Levi B. Adams, in his lifetime was the owner of a bond and mortgage for $4,000, which, a short time before he died, was by him duly assigned to a third person, and by him transferred to the wife, now the widow of the deceased. Upon the settlement of his estate, it appeared that at the time he transferred this bond and mortgage he was insolvent, .and indebted to the creditors on the majority of them appearing in the Surrogate’s Court.

This was a proceeding to settle the accounts of Albertus Larrour, one of the executors of the last will and testament of Franklin Larrour, deceased. Albertus Larrour, one of the executors of the last will and testament of Franklin Larrour, deceased, filed his accounts for final settlement.

An order was made in this proceeding for the sale of real estate of the decedent for the payment of his debts. On the application of certain of the heirs, the order was opened to enable them to contest the application of assets by the administrators, and the validity of the debts on account of which the sale was applied for.

This was an application for the probate of the last-will and testament of Andrew Stewart, deceased. The will related to both real and personal property. Its admission to probate was contested on two grounds: first, that it was not duly executed, and second, that the will was procured by undue influence.

<p>This was a hearing, upon exceptions on the part of Burnett M. Brink, a residuary legatee under the will of Sarah Brink, deceased, and claiming also as creditor, and of John J. Brink, claiming as creditor, to the report of the auditor upon the final accounting of Isaac Layton as administrator with the will annexed of the deceased.</p> <p>The will of Sarah Brink gave all her property, after payment of her funeral expenses and debts, to her grand daughter Sarah Bedell and her grandson, Barnett M. Brink, one of the contestants, to be divided equally between them. The executor named in the will having died before the testatrix, Isaac Layton was appointed administrator with the will annexed. The accounts of the administrator, having been filed for a final settlement, were contested, and thereupon were referred to an*auditor for adjustment.</p> <p>Exceptions were now taken to his report thereon in substance.</p> <p>1st, to the allowance of a payment made by the administrator to Sarah Bedell for moneys claimed to have been held by the testatrix in trust for her, paid and charged in the account, to the amount of $2,685, but allowed by the auditor to the extent only of $766.35.</p> <p>2d, to the allowance of a claim of $300 to Delos B. Bedell, for services rendered the testatrix in her life time.</p> <p>3d, to the rejection of a claim of Burnett M. Brink of $2,298.88 for his interest in real estate derived from Abram "V. Brink, deceased, which had been sold and the avails of which had been received by the testatrix, including rents and profits before the sale, and interest on the avails, and,</p> <p>4th, a like claim for a like amount in favor of John J. Brink.</p>

This proceeding* was for the final settlement of the accounts of Lucilla Cornwell, Administratrix of the goods, &c., of Abiah Cornwell, deceased. The intestate was a merchant, at Woodhull, in this county, and at his decease, on the 28th March, 1872, left a stock of goods, accounts, and notes, employed in and growing out of his business, with a few other articles of personal property.

This proceeding was a petition, by a judgment creditor, for an order requiring the administrators of Philip Hoffman, deceased, lo pay a portion of a judgment recovered by petitioner’s assignor against the deceased, and three others jointly in an action of defamation. i The petitioner was the assignee of the judgment which was recovered by one Peter Engel against Jacob Landre, Jacob Landre, Jr., Philip Hoffman, the decedent, and John J. Fox, for $968.24 April 19, 1871.

This was an application by Jane B. Jennings and others, administrators of the estate of Helen 0 Jones, deceased, for leave to mortgage, lease, or sell her real estate for payment of debts. For the purpose of establishing a debt of the intestate to William B. Jennings, the administrators introduced the following evidence:— 1. A judgment in the Supreme Oourt recovered by1 him against the administrators, after a time upon the merits. ' 2.

This was an application by executors to vacate the appointment of a collector, or special administrator, procured by an intending contestant of the will, and to procure appointment of one of the executors as collector in his stead.

<p>This was an application to prove the will of Daniel J. Shaw. The facts are detailed in the opinion of the Surrogate.</p>

This was a proceeding for the final settlement of the accounts of Samuel Freeman, Jr., in which were contained certain charges which he asked to have allowed. Objections were made by the heirs and next of kin.

This was an application to determine who are the legal heirs and next of kin of Lydia Cornwell late of Cortland, deceased, intestate. She died in December, 1872, leaving sisters, but no husband, parent or child. Her husband, Elihu Cornwell, by a former wife, had one daughter, Mrs. Gazley, who died in 1859, leaving a husband, Dr. Gazlay, and three children, who now claim the estate, of Mrs. Lydia Cornwell.

This was a proceeding for the final accounting of the estate of Sylvester Camp, deceased.

The administrator in this .matter is the father and only next of kin of the deceased, whose will was refused probate by the Surrogate in June, 1870; thereupon letters of administration were issued to Amos W. Gates. The administrator recently presented a petition for a final accounting, and, among others, cited William Bomer, who claims to be a creditor of the intestate.

This was a proceeding under chapter 394, of the laws of 1870, for the examination of a person alleged to have property of the deceased in his possession which he refused to deliver to the administrator.

The petition alleged that the petitioner, Mpnmouth G. Hart, was on the 3rd June, 1874, duly appointed receiver of all the debts, property and equitable interests of one Edward Duffy, in an action in the supreme court, in which Michael Daly is plaintiff and said Edward Duffy, defendant; that having executed and filed the proper bond as such receiver, an order was, on the 27th June, 1874, made by the Honorable A. B. Tappen, a Justice of the Supreme Court, authorizing and…

<p>The whole estate consisted of realty, with an annual rental of $30,000 held by the executor in trust under the will. On an order being made removing the executor in default of his giving a bond, with sureties —Reid, that the amount of the penalty of the bond required of him was discretionary with the Surrogate.</p> <p>Held further,—that the sureties on such a bond would not be required to justify in double the amount of penalty.</p>

This was an application to open an order made by-the Surrogate, on the petition of a judgment creditor.

The petition alleged, among other things, that the petitioner was a minor over the age of fourteen years, residing at Springfield, in the state of Massachusetts: and that she was entitled to a certain property within the county of Westchester, to wit, a * legacy of one' thousand dollars bequeathed to her by Azuba E. Barney late of Greenburg, in said county, deceased; and prayed that John 0.

Since the guardian of the minor was appointed, she has become a resident of the state of Connecticut. She is now of age. Shortly before, or since, she attained her. majority, she became a lunatic, and was so pronounced by the proper authorities of the sister state, and a conservator, tantamount to a committee under our statutes, was appointed.

Stephen S. Marshall, the administrator of John Hitchcock, a deceased intestate, filed, on May 23d, 1873, his petition for a final settlement of his account, and a citation was duly issued and served accordingly,, and on September 24th, 1873, his accounts were filed,'by which it appeared that the disributive share of George Walker, one of the children of the deceased, amounted to 8-71 47.

This was a proceeding for the probate of a paper propounded as the last will and testament of Susan A. Baker, deceased. The will was propounded by the executor, by a petition praying that the will might be proved, and letters issue thereon, excepting one bequest or “ item” which it prayed might be rejected.

This was an application on.the part of Mrs. Elizabeth T„ Bamarell to set aside an order of the Surrogate, made November 21st, 1873, removing her as testamentary guardian of Kate'W. Shepherd, an infant under fourteen years of age; and a further application on behalf of Abby J. Walker to remove Mrs. Elizabeth T. Bamarell, as testamentary guardian of the said infant. On the 28th day of September, 1873, Samuel 0.

This proceeding was instituted upon an order to show cause why the pretended probate of the instrument propounded as the last will and testament of •Alexander Turney Stewart, deceased, as a will of real and personal estate, and the apparent decision thereon, should not be adjudged void, revoked, vacated, and set aside.

This was a claim for payment of the creditor Mcholl, for sendees rendered to the deceased, Thomas Larkin, who died in September, 1874. The account or claim presented bore date July 1st, 1875, and was for services by the year, alleged to have been rendered, by the claimant for the intestate, during the years 1859' to 1868.

The contestants objected to the probate, particularly because;—1. Of alleged undue influence exercised by the two subscribing witnesses to the will; 2. The incapacity of the testatrix; and 3. The following defects urged in respect to the mode of execution. First: That the testatrix did not subscribe the will. Second : That she did not declare it to be her will. Tim'd: That she did not request the witnesses to subscribe their names as such.

This was a proceeding for a final settlement of accounts of the executors, etc., of George 0. Oram, deceased.

<p>Under 2 R. S., 86, $ 23, which, forbids an executor neglecting to join in making an inventory, to interfere thereafter with the estate,—and 2 R. S.,93, $ 58, which makes the compensation of an executor dependent on the sums received and paid out,—no commissions can be allowed to an executor who refused to join in the inventory because it was untruthful, and thereafter took no part in the administration.</p> <p>An executor who is obstructed by his co-executors in the performance of his duty to make a true inventory, should take proceedings to enforce the making of it.</p> <p>The Act of 1863, which authorises the allowance of separate commissions to several executors where the estate exceeds 8100,000,—does not apply in favor of an executor who has not filed an inventory nor performed any duty.</p> <p>Such an executor, if he has no interest in any unsatisfied bequest, has no standing in court to object to the correctness of the account of his co-executors.</p>

This was a proceeding for a final settlement of an account of the administratrix, in the matter of the estate of Bichard Ward, deceased. Objection was made to the final account rendered by the administratrix, on the ground, among others, that it did not embrace a deposit, in the Excelsior Savings Bank of the City of New York, amounting to the sum of $3,045, nor certain household furniture and chattels, worth $800.

This was a proceeding for a settlement of accounts in the matter of the estate of hfoah T. Pike, deceased. The question submitted for determination was as to the mode of allowing commissions to the four trustees named in the will, who were also appointed executors therein.

This was a motion to confirm the report of an auditor in the matter of the estate of Catharine Spannhake, deceased. The executor, Lewis Spannhake, was the husband of the testatrix, and a physician; and in his account rendered, he charged the estate the sum of $270 for medical attendance on Ms wife, and also for the sum of $725, paid to Dr. Webber for medical attendance upon the executor’s wife, both which items were disallowed by the auditor.

This was a proceeding in the matter of the estate of Charles E. Cornell, deceased. The question involved was the construction of the following clause of the testator’s will: “ I give to my sister Louisa Adeline, wife of Salmon Booth, the interest upon $1,500 in case she shall become a widow, during her widowhood—payable annually.

This was a proceeding on the final accounting by the executors of the will of Paran Stevens, deceased. The account was filed by John L. Melcher and O. G. Stevens, two of the executors, on the 4th June, 1874, to which Marietta R. Stevens, executrix, filed objections, September 4, 1874, stating that the account was filed without her being joined, and insisting on her right to join in such accounting, so that she might be discharged as such executrix.

This was a motion to confirm a report of the late Surrogate Van Schaick, made by him, as referee, appointed by the late Surrogate Hutchings, which had been submitted to Mr. Van Schaick, after he succeeded Mr. Hutchings, as Surrogate, with the understanding that the whole question was open for consideration. The facts in evidence were as follows : The intestate, Anthony Jones, died in the city of New York, April 15, 1873.

This was a petition for leave to issue execution on a judgment obtained against the executors, on the merits. The petition set forth that the executors had filed their account, and that by such account there were, sufficient assets applicable to the payment of the judgment. A preliminary objection was made on behalf of the executors, that the petition was neither signed nor verified by the petitioner.

This was a petition by Mary Emma Senior, one of the residuary legatees of the will of Francis 0. Senior, deceased, to remove Jacob H. Ackermann, as executor and guardian.

This was a motion to confirm the report of an auditor on the final accounting of the executors of the estate of Andreas Teyn, deceased, on objections filed by a legatee and daughter of the testator.

The petition verified January 31, 1876, alleged that the petitioner, Adelaide F. Goulburn was a creditor of the deceased; that letters of administration were granted June 16,1874, to Mary Sayre, widow of the deceased, who in January, 1876, died, leaving certain assets of the decedent unadministered. That the personal estate of the decedent was of the value of $6,000; and that he left James Denie Sayre, an alleged son, of full age, but left no other children, or descendants.

This was a proceeding to correct an auditor’s report made on a reference of an account filed by testamentary trustees in the estate of James Uglow, deceased.

This was a petition for payment of a claim, against the estate of William J. Van Duzer, deceased. The question submitted in this matter, was, whether John. E. Graham, the petitioner, is entitled to a preference over the ordinary creditors of the estate, under the following circumstances. The testator received a wagon of the petitioner, to sell on commission, with instructions to sell the same for $250, and retain the balance over and above that sum, for his commissions.

This was an application for leave to issue execution on a judgment recovered by the petitioner against the executors of the will of John S. Howell, deceased, for the sum of $5,211.60, damages and costs, after a trial had on the merits, June 15th, 1876.

This was an application by one executor of the will of Thomas B. Bitch, deceased, to compel his co-executors to render an account of their proceeding as such. A citation was issued and served, and an account rendered and filed, to which objections were interposed; and an auditor was appointed.

This was a motion to confirm the report of the auditor, and referee, Henry J. Oullen, jr., Esq., on final accounting in the estate of Henry Bruner, deceased. Exceptions to the report were filed by various parties on various grounds. The special guardian of the infants excepted, because the auditors did not charge Messrs.

This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of Bridget 'Dugan, deceased. The will in a question bore date the 27th day of August, 1>75, and the testatrix died on the 18th day of January, 1876. The will gave and bequeathed to her son, Bernard Dugan, the lease of Ho. 183 Ludlow street, New York and the building thereon, with all her personal property, to discharge her indebtedness to her said son, and appointed him sole executor.

This was an accounting by the surviving executors, and trustees of the estate of Alfred B. Mount, deceased.

This was a proceeding for the probate of the will of Bridget ÍTeugent, deceased.

This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of Charles Craft Holbrook, deceased. The will in question bore date 19th November, 1874, and was then witnessed by William Coit and E. L. Sanderson. On the 18tn day of March, 1875, the will was executed, and witnessed by Messrs. Coit, Sanderson, and Evelina T. Lawrence.

Tras was an application to revoke the letters testamentary granted to Lewis L. Delafield, on the will of Susan M. Parish. The petition was by Charles B. Fosdick, William H, Marvin, and Annie Frances Emmett, formerly Annie Frances Monson.

Tins was a further decision of incidental questions involved in the matter of the estate of Alfred E. Mount, deceased, on which the decision of the main questions is reported ante, p. 547.

This proceeding was instituted by the children, and next of kin of J. H. Green, deceased, to compel an accounting by the administrator, and the payment of the distributive share of the applicants. An account was rendered, to which objections were filed, and a reference was had, and the referee made and filed a report.

This was a proceeding for the final accounting of B. Oarman Cowles, and Joseph E. Donnell, surviving trustees, &c., of Charles E. Carman, under the last will and testament of Bichard R Carman, deceased.

This was a proceeding for the final settlement of the accounts of the public administrator, in the matter of the estate of John Sheerin, deceased. The public administrator filed his account of proceedings in this estate, and objections to the account were filed,and the matter was referred to an auditor who made his report, and the public administrator filed exceptions thereto.

This was a proceeding for the final accounting of the executors, &c., of George Lewis Augustus Moke, deceased. Upon objection to the form of the decree in this case, the question was submitted, whether by the terms of the will, the widow, denominated executrix in the tenth clause, appointing her, was also made trustee under the will.

Elizabeth A. Lynch, executrix of the will, &c., of Edward Lynch, presented her petition for leave to resign. It set forth the following facts: the petitioner and Bichard M. Harrison were appointed executors, but Harrison did not qualify. On 4th March, 1876, the petitioner obtained an order to advertise for claims, and did so. She paid all the debts presented, except $80, and she believes there are no other debts unpaid.

<p>The public administrator has a right to administration with the will annexed in preference to the attorney in fact of disqualified next of kin, except where the will was made by a testator dying domiciled abroad, and was proved by exemplification of a foreign probate, under L., 1803, c. 403.</p>

<p>A Surrogate’s decree having been adjudged void, by the Supreme Court, it is superfluous for the Surrogate to vacate it.</p> <p>On an application to the Surrogate to sign the record of business left incomplete by his predecessor, it is proper to require proof by affidavit or otherwise, of the facts; and to recite in the record, the mode in which the record was completed.</p> <p>The parties in interest should have opportunity to be heard on such application, unless their consent is produced.</p>

This was a proceeding for tne probate of the last will and testament of George W. Williamson, deceased. The will appeared to have been executed on the 24th day of July, 1866, in duplicate, one of the two originals being in the handwriting of the testator, he having been a lawyer. It was witnessed by Cornelius E. Sutton, Isaac Fryer, and George J. Greenfield.

This was a proceeding in the matter of the estate of John Williamson, deceased, for the final accounting of Richard Williamson, Jr. executor.

<p>Petition for letters of administration upon the estate of Maria Renholm, otherwise Meyer, deceased.</p> <p>Andrew Renholm filed his petition setting forth that he was the husband of the deceased, who died intestate, in New York, the 19th December, 1876, and that she died possessed of certain personal property in that city, which did not exceed Si,300, and that she left her surviving no next of kin.</p> <p>The public administrator appeared and answered, denying that the petitioner was the husband of the intestate, and applied for letters of administration, on the ground that the intestate left no next of kin.</p> <p>The matter was referred to. Cornelius Minor, Esq., to take and report testimony as to the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased; and the referee filed his report with the testimony annexed. This report stated that, though by the order of reference he was not directed to determine the matter in controversy, or give his opinion upon the case, yet as the respective counsel summed up the case before him, he appends his opinion. The petitioner did not claim that he was ceremonially married to deceased, but that eight days after her former husband’s death, he commenced to cohabit with her; and gave testimony that the deceased called him her husband, and he called her his wife. On behalf of the public administrator, testimony was given that the deceased declared, during her cohabitation with the petitioner, that she was not married, and would not marry again : that shortly before her death, she deposited money in the savings bank, in the name of Meyer, and that the petitioner, after her death, admitted that he was not married, and that she, at any time, could have left him, and he, her, and the other could have married without violation of the law. Though the testimony was conflicting, the referee was of the opinion that the weight of testimony was against any marriage by verbal agreement of the parties, or holding themselves out as husband and wife; and that it would be against sound morals to uphold the connection, as constituting a legal marriage, and that the petition should be dismissed, and letters granted to the public administrator.</p>

This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of Edward McDermott, deceased. The will bore date the 4th day of May, 1859. By it the testator devised and bequeathed all his property, after payment of his debts, to his wife, Eose Ann McDermott, and appointed her his sole executrix.

This was a proceeding for the final settlement of accounts of the executor of the will, &c., of James Marsh, deceased. The executors, Clinton Gilbert and James Marsh, Jr., filed an account of then proceedings, July 7th, 1874. Objections being filed, the account, with such objections, was referred to an auditor who filed .his report December 27th, 1876, to which exceptions were filed January 8,1877, by James Marsh, Jr., one of the executors.

This was a proceeding in the matter of the estate of Foah F.Pike, deceased.

This was a proceeding for the accounting of James Frazer, as guardian of Sarah Torry, and James Torry, minors. The guardian filed his account to which objections were interposed by the counsel for the wards, and.the matter was referred to Samuel Marsh,Esq., as auditor.

This was a proceeding for the final accounting of the executor of Clementina Euthven, deceased. The testatrix made her will dated August 2Qfch, 1862, which was probated in 1863, and in 1866, letters were issued by one Owens, as executor, who died soon after, and on November 6th, 1874, letters were issued to James A. Euthven, the accounting executor.

<p>This was an application in the matter of, the estate of W. P. Furniss, deceased, to compel the executors to place to the account of the petitioner, as an investment the amount for which certain real estate was sold to one Eogers, book-keeper for the executor.</p> <p>The petitioner, Leon Furniss, was a devisee and legatee, and by a decree of this court, the executors and trustees were to account to the petitioner for the amount and the nature of the investments held in trust for him, the rents and profits of which he was to receive.</p> <p>The petition alleged that they sold by public auction, eight lots of ground located in this city, four of which were stated to have been purchased by said Eogers for the benefit of petitioner, the petitioner alleging that such purchases were without authority, and contrary to the duty of the trustees.</p> <p>It appeared that three of the lots sold for $23,500, and five of them for $28,550. Thirty per cent, was paid down, and the trustees took mortgages for the balance, the first of $16,450, and the next for $19,985; the mortgages were foreclosed for non-payment of interest. The first sold for $8,500, and the other for $10,-000, to the trustees, who were the only bidders. In September, 1876, the petitioner requested the trustees to sell the lots; they were advertised, and the petitioner was called upon for instructions, but he declined to commit himself, but stated they ought to bring $24,000; that four of the lots sold for $13,025; the remaining lots, to make $24,000, should have sold for $3,000 each—the best price offered for two of them was $2,100, and for the other two, $1,800 each, and for that reason the trustees declined to sell them, but had them bid in for the benefit of the petitioner.</p> <p>It appeared that the executors were empowered by the will to sell the real estate, at their discretion; that the income of that portion of the estate held by the trustees for petitioner was to be paid to him, the principal sum to go to his brothers and sisters, as he should appoint by will, but if he failed to appoint, then to them in equal shares, but in case judgment should be recovered against him, his interest was to cease, except that the trustees paid his necessary support, and the surplus to go to his sisters. The powers conferred upon the executors were discretionary, and the majority of them could exercise the discretion.</p>

<p>This was a motion to confirm the report of the referee made on the accounting of the executor in the matter of the estate of Benjamin F. Wheelwright, deceased. The only objection of any importance was that interposed by Washington S. Wheelwright, one of the legatees, to the effect that the referee, by his ninth finding^ found that the executors, in January 1876, retained from the capital of the estate $15,000 on account of their commissions, being $5,000 apiece, and it was claimed that they had no authority to do so, and should have been charged by the referee with interest thereon from that time to the settlement. The evidence showed that notwithstanding the appropriation of said $15,000 as commissions, the executors were unable to loan the funds of the estate, and were compelled to have in hand from $15,000 to $20,000, which could not be invested.</p>

This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of William G. McLaughlin, deceased. ISTumerous objections to the probate were filed by Maria S. Mofiatt, one of the daughters of the deceased, who received a bequest of but $100. The widow received $3,500, and the testator’s daughter Zillah, and a son Alfred, were made residuary legatees.

This was an application to vacate or modify an order made in the matter of the estate of James Kerrigan deceased, ordering the executor and executrix to pay forthwith to the general guardian of Margaret Kerrigan 8300, given by testator’s will in the following language: “ I further order, and direct my executor and executrix hereinafter named, to pay annually the sum of $300, to each of my grandchildren hereinafter named, to wit: Margaret Kerrigan, &c., to be paid during the…

This was a motion to confirm the report of a referee appointed to take testimony as to the death of Jacob Ackerman, a legatee under the will of Susannah Ackerman, deceased.

This was a proceeding on the accounting of Dexter B. Britton, guardian, &c., of Alexander M. Fisher. The account was filed with annual rests, and credit for commissions at the rate of two and one-half per cent, for receiving, and the same rate for paying out, at each annual rest. Objections were filed to the account by the ward, alleging that there was an overcharge for commissions.

<p>This was a proceeding for the probate of the last will and testament of Edward J. Sears, deceased.</p> <p>Objections were interposed by Sarah Ourran and Maria Sears, sisters, and Mark Sears, a brother of the testator.</p> <p>There was no question as to the due execution of the will, and the contestant waived all objections to the probate of the will as a will of personal property. It was contended that the will could not be admitted as a will of real property, on the ground of the invalidity of the seventh clause of the will disposing of the testator’s real estate.</p> <p>The grounds of the objection were:</p> <p>First, that the devise to the trustees of Manhattan College and their successors was to them and not to the college.</p> <p>Second, that if the devise were held to be adverse to the college, it was void, because the college had no capacity to take and hold the property in trust.</p> <p>The seventh clause of the will was as follows:</p> <p>“ Seventh, I give and devise all my real estate, consisting of two brown stone houses, and the lots on which they are erected, viz: House and lot Ho. 244 E. 49th street, between 2d and 3d Avenues, and the house and lot 106 East 61st street, between Lexington and 4th Avenues, in the city of New York, to the trustees of Manhattan College in the city of New York, and their successors for ever, in trust to receive the rents, issues, and profits thereof, to apply the same to the use of said Manhattan College for the following purpose, to wit: To found and maintain a Latin professorship in said college to be called the Sears professorship.”</p> <p>The foregoing devise is made to said trustees on the express condition, that out of the rents, issues and profits of said real estate, the said trustees, and their successors shall pay to my wife, Catherine Irwin Sears, an annuity of $1,500 per annum for and during the term of her natural life, the same to be paid to her in monthly or quarterly payments as the said Catherine Irwin Sears may elect.</p> <p>“ After the death of my said wife, but not before, I authorize and empower the said trustees, and their successors, intheii discretion, to sell any, or all,t7ie real estate hereby devised, in trust, viz.: the two houses and the lots above mentioned, and invest the proceeds thereof, and from time to time to change the said investments as they may be advised, and to receive the rents, profits, issues, interest, and income thereof, arising from such investment, and to apply the same, in the same manner, and upon the same trusts as those on which said real estate is devised.”</p>

This was an application on the part of a creditor of the estate of James D. McFeeley, for confirmation of the report of the sale of certain real estate of the decedent. The sale was made under an order of this court by a freeholder, the administrator having refused to proceed with the sale.

This was an application by the administrator of the husband of Elizabeth OMel, deceased, for letters of administration on the estate of the wife, she having died without leaving descendants, and before her husband, who subsequently died without having taken out letters of administration on his wife’s estate.

<p>This was an application by the administratrix of the estate of Isaac 0. Loper, deceased, for an order authorizing her to sign a composition deed whereby certain debtors, who were parties to the deed and who had made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors, would be enabled to continue their business for the term of three years in hopes of being able to pay their debts in full, or at least in a greater proportion than if the business were wound up by the assignee, in which latter event the creditors would probably not realize more than one-third or one-half of their claims.</p> <p>By the terms of the proposed composition deed the administratrix assigned her claim to trustees who were also parties to the deed, and through whom the creditors were to be paid.</p> <p>The deed also allowed each of the debtors to apply to his support, the sum of $3,000, yearly, out of the proceeds cf the business before making any payments to the creditors.</p>