Majority
Headnote
Executors of a will of real and personal property had filed no inventory in New York, where part of the personalty was, and one of them was controlling the estate, and a wasting of it was alleged, while their pecuniary inability was stated, and it was suggested that coercive steps were about to be taken in the surrogate’s office, (where they had, however, lately given bond on application of the present complainant,) and the bill prayed that the executors be enjoined and also suspended, and a receiver appointed. The cowrt held, that the surrogate had full power in the premises, and there were not such special circumstances as made it necessary for this court to interfere on the ground of having concurrent jurisdiction. Preliminary injunction dissolved.The surrogate had full power by the revised statutes, and by the act concerning the surrogate’s courts, passed May 16,1837, § 61, to do whatever may be necessary to prevent waste of the estate; and in this instance, the surrogate of New York having exercised his authority as far as he deemed it necessary or proper, it is not for this court farther to interfere with the authority of the executors. Even if the court of chancery has concurrent jurisdiction, there are not such special circumstances in this case as to call for this court’s interposition after what has taken place.
This injunction must be dissolved. Costs to abide the event.