← Cases

In re the Estate of Lawrence

16 N.Y. St. Rep. 971 Court N.Y. Sur. Ct. Decision date 1888-05-04 English

Contents

Majority

p. 971
In the Matter of the Estate of Horatio J. Lawrence, Deceased.
(Surrogates Court, New York County,
Filed May 4, 1888).

Headnote

1. Accounting—When compulsory accounting ordered.
In order to require an account to be rendered it is not necessary that there should be a party entitled to present payment. An account may be required in order to disclose the state of the funds.
3. Same—Who interested in estate within Code op Civil Pro., § 3736.
Persons who as heirs and next of kin are entitled to the remainder after a life estate given by will are interested in the estate within the meaning of Code Civ. Pro. § 3736.
John A. Carney, for petitioner; Foster & Thompson, for ex’rs.

Application by the general guardian of two infants for a compulsory accounting; more than eighteen months have elapsed since the testator’s death and no accounting has been filed. The respondent claims that the petitioners are not ‘1 parties interested in the estate ” within section 2726.

The petition alleges that the petitioners are interested in the estate of deceased to the extent of one-eighth each, and are particularly interested in a fund of §50,000. A life estate in this sum was given to the wife of testator (the grandmother of petitioners), and after her death remainder to his children, one of whom was the father of these infants. The grandmother is still living, but the father of petitioners is dead.

In order to require an account to be rendered, it is not necessary that there should be a party entitled to present payment. An account may be required in order to disclose the state of the fund. Bogart v. Van Velsor, 4 Edw., 718 . The infants in this proceeding are the heirs and next of kin of their late father, and are entitled as such to the remainder after the life estate given by the will. Persons so situated have been held to be “ interested in the estate ” within the meaning of section 2726. Campbell v. Purdy, 5 Redf., 434; Matter of Wood, 5 Dem., 348 ; (S. C., 7 St. Rep., 721 ; Redf., L. & P., 669, 670.

Motion granted.