Majority
Headnote
1. Executobs and Administbatobs (§ 472[1] )—Findings oe Subbogate—Conclusiveness.This is not a petition for the payment of a legacy or other pecuniary provision or distributive share under a will made pursuant to the provisions of section 2722 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which must be dismissed without prejudice to an action or an accounting in behalf of the petitioner where the executor or administrator files an answer in writing, duly verified, denying the validity or legality of the petitioner’s claim, and setting forth facts which show that it is doubtful whether it is valid and legal. The petition evidently was presented pursuant to the provisions of section 2727 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the theory that the petitioner is “a person interested in the estate or fund” referred to in the petition, and for the purpose of having the Surrogate’s Court exercise the power conferred by section 2726 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel a judicial settlement of the accounts of the executor.
The petition is presented by Laura Blakeney, whose maiden name
On the petition a citation was duly issued to the executor, who filed an answer setting forth, in substance,_ that the husband and wife died at the same time from the injuries received by a collision, and he therefore denied that the wife of the testator survived him. Thereupon, the surrogate on motion of the attorney for the petitioner appointed a referee to take proof and report the evidence with his opinion thereon as to whether said Henrietta Laffargue survived her husband, and the interest of the petitioner and of her sister in the estate of the testator, and reserved all other questions until the coming in of the report. The referee thereafter filed a report containing certain findings of fact, the first of which is that the wife survived her husband. Thereupon the surrogate made an order adopting the first finding of the referee and directing the executor to account.
The other parties interested in the estate have neither been cited nor heard, and therefore this finding cannot bind them. We are of opinion, however, that it .was unnecessary for the surrogate to thus formally determine the question of fact, and therefore the finding should
It follows, therefore, that the order should be modified by striking out the provision thereof by which the first finding of the referee is adopted and found, and substituting in lieu thereof a recital that the petitioner has presented prima facie evidence that she is interested in the estate and is entitled to institute the proceeding, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.