Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re Baruth 116 N.Y.S. 1125

← Cases

In re Baruth

116 N.Y.S. 1125 Court N.Y. Sur. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 1125
(62 Misc. Rep. 596.)
In re BARUTH et al.
(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County.
March, 1909.)

Headnote

Executors and Administrators (§ 481[1] )—Accounting—Settlement of Claim —Allowance.
Where executors settled a claim against the estate in good faith and from a reasonable fear that litigation for its enforcement might go against the estate, they should be credited with the sum paid, though the claim was afterwards shown to have had no foundation.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent, Dig. § 2065; Dec. Dig. § 481.*]
p. 1126
In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Herman Baruth and Isaac Lublin, executors of Theresa Ketcham.
Objections overruled.
Hirsh & Rasquin (Hugo Hirsh, of counsel), for executors.
Hugo Wintner, for contestant, Philip Ketcham.
Ralph K. Jacobs, for Annie Jacobs.

Objection is made that the executors’ account should not be credited with the sum paid in compromise of an action against them on a claim said to have accrued against their decedent.

A determination that the executors were not liable in that action would not sustain the objection. Even if the cause of action which the executors have settled were now shown to have had no foundation, they should be allowed credit for the payment, if it was made in good faith and from a reasonable fear that the litigation might go against them, or that their success therein might prove more costly than a partial surrender.

Without an attempt to answer the close questions which surround this claim, it should be held that the executors did wisely and faithfully in purchasing peace for the estate. True, the alleged creditor, as a part of the compromise, gave to the executors his bond to indemnify them against liability if any should occur by reason of objections such as áre now filed; but the quality of the objection remains the same as if no bond had been given. It still presents only the question whether the claim was fraudulently or negligently compounded.

The objection is overruled.

Objection overruled.