¶1The objection seems to be well taken. It would not appear that the expenditure could fairly be held to be comprehended within the lines of his duty as a prospective representative; nor as being necessary and reasonable, under § 2562. If he could *60be allowed a sum paid to any such company for such a purpose, he might, with equal propriety, be allowed any like sum paid to individuals to become his sureties. It seems to be a matter entirely personal to the administrator. If he cannot furnish the necessary bond, he cannot redeive his appointment. The estate or persons in interest, are under no obligation to refund to him the money he may have expended in procuring his sureties, whoever or whatever they may be. The item is, therefore, disallowed.
6 Dem. Sur. 59
Jenkins v. Shaffer
Decided April 15, 1888
New York Surrogate's Court · decided 1888-04-15
Pending a contest over an alleged will of decedent, which was finally refused probate, James H. Jenkins was appointed temporary administrator, giving a bond with the New York Bond & Indemnity Company as the surety. On his accounting, he claimed, as a charge against the estate, the sum of $45, which he paid said Company to become such surety. This item was objected to by George W. Shaffer, the surviving husband of the deceased.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1919
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1888-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →