Page images
PDF
EPUB

tamentary trustees, of money or other property in their possession, belonging to the estate.

5. To direct the disposition of real property, and in. terests in real property, of decedents, for the payment of their debts and funeral expenses, and the disposition of the proceeds thereof.

6. To administer justice, in all matters relating to the affairs of decedents, according to the provisions of the statutes relating thereto.

7. To appoint and remove guardians for infants ; to compel the payment and delivery by them of money or other property belonging to their wards; and, in the cases specially prescribed by law, to direct and control their conduct, and settle their accounts.

This jurisdiction must be exercised in the cases, and in the manner, prescribed by statute.

2 R. S. 220, 21 (2 Edm. 229). Bevan v. Cooper, 72 N. Y. 316, 328; see, also, L. 1874, ch. 267 (9 Edm. 884); Morgan v. Hannas, 13 Abb. N.$.361; Bricks' Estate, 15 Abb. Pr. 12, 31, 32; Pew v. Hastings, 1 Barb. Ch. 452; Sipperly v. Baucus, 24 N.Y. 46; Dobke v. McClaran, 41 Bart. 191 ; Camp bell v. Thatcher, 54 id. 382; Kyle v. Kyle, 3 II un, 458; Kohler v. Knapp i Bradf. 241 ; Hartnett v. Wandell, 60 N.Y. 346; 16 Abb. N. 8. 383; Mat. ter' of Latson, 1 Duer, 696; Everts v. Everts, 62 Barb, 577; Tucker o. Tucker, 4 Keyes, 136; Matter of Harstrom, 7 Abb. N. C. 391; Dubois v. Sands, 43 Barb. 412; People v. Corlies, 1 Sandf. 228 ; Curtis v. Stilwell, 32 Barb. 354; Ruthven 7. Patten, 1 Rob. 416; s. C., 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 121; Guttsberger v. Smith, 2 Bradf. 86; Cooper v. Felter, 6 Lans. 485; Kidd d. Chapman, 2 Barb. Ch. 414; Marston v. Paulding, 10 Paige, 40; Ex parte Parker, 1 Barb. Ch. 154; Bear v. Irwin, 10 Wend. 441; McFrail v. Craw. fords, 12 id. 533; Farrington v. King, 1 Bradf. 182; Jenkins v. Robinson,

Wend. 436; Van Nostrand v. Wright, Lalor, 260: Corwin v. Merritt, 3 Barb. 341; People v. Hartman, 2 Sweeny, 576; Holmes v. Smith, 3 Hun, 413; Rugbee v. Surrogate of Yates, 2 Cow. 471; Goodrich v. Pendleton, Johns. Ch. 519; Vreeland v. McClelland, 1 Bradf. 393; James v. Adams, 22 How. Pr. 409; Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Rob. 166; Mead v. Mead, 18 Barb. 578; Summerville's Estate, 1 Tuck. 76; Brown v. Lynch, 2 Bradf. 214; IIughes' Estate, 1 Tuck. 38; Dutton v. Dutton, 8 How. Pr. 99; Seaman v. Duryea, 11 N. Y. 231; De Guerie v. Bonfanti, 19 Law Rep. 681 ; Farns worth v. Oliphant, 19 Barb. 30; Ex parte Bartlett, 4 Bradf. 221; Banks v. Taylor, 10 Abb. Pr. 199; O'Neil's Estate, 1 Tuck. 36 ; People v.Wamsley, 15 Abb. Pr. 323; Seymour v. Seymour, 4 Johns. Ch. 409; Foster v. Wiber, 1 Paige, 537; Lawrence's Estate, Tuck.68; Stagg v.Jackson, 21 rb Ch. 86; s. c., 1 N. Y. 206; Bloodgood v. Brusen, 2 Bradf. 8; Clark v. Clark, 3 id. 32; Graham v. De Witt, id. 181; McSorley v. Leary, 4 Sandf, Ch. 414 and 442; Ex parte Vandervoort, i Redf.270 ; Vulte v. Martin, 44 How. Pr. 18; Montrose v. Wheeler, 4 Lans. 99;

Ex parte Jones, i Redt. 263; Magee v. Veeder, 6 Barb. 352; Disosway v. Bank of Washington, 24 id. 60; Ane drews v. Wallace, 17 How: Pr. 263; People v. Waldron, 52 id. 221; Beers v. Shannon, 73 N. Y. 292; Curran v. Sears, 2 Redf. 526 ; Currin v. Fanning, 13 Hun, 458; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N.Y. 315; Savage v. Olmstead, 2 Redf. 478; Furniss v. Furniss, id. 497 ; Brown's Accounting, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 457; Carman v. Cowles, 2 Redf. 419; Gerould v. Wilson, 16 Hun, 530; Ex parte Adams, 2 Redf. 66; Boughton v. Flint, 74 N. Y, 476; Shakespeare v. Markham, 10 Hun, 311; 72 N. Y., 409; Stevens v. Stevens, 2 Bedt. 265;

Bevan v. Cooper, 72 N. Y. 317; Stilwell v. Carpenter, 2 Abb. A. C. 238; Hitchcock v. Marshall, 2 Redf. 174; Stilwell v. Carpenter, 50

N. Y. 414; !!opkins v. Van Valkenburgh, 16 Hun, 3; Ex parte Hosford 1 Redf. 169; Ex parte Flood, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 407; Kyle v. Kyle, 67 N. Y. 400; S.C., 3 Hun, 958.

§ 2473. Presumption of jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction of a surrogate's court to make, in a case specified in the last section, a decree or other determina tion, is drawn in question collaterally, and the necessary parties were duly cited or appeared, the jurisdiction is presumptively, and, in the absence of fraud or collusion, conclusively, established, by an allegation of the jurisdictional facts, contained in a written petition or answer, duly verified, used in the surrogate's court. The fact that the parties were duly cited is presumptively proved, by a recital to that effect in the decree.

New in form"; L. 1870, ch. 359, 2 1. Bolton v. Jacks, 6 Rob, 166 ; Bumpstead v. Read, 31 Barb. 661; Beers v. Shannon, 12 Hun, 161, reversed on other grounds, 73 N. Y. 292; Wetmore v. Parker, 7 Lans, 121; 8. C., 112 N. Y. 450; Sibly v. Wafle, 16 id. 180 ; Wetmore v. Parker, 52 id. 450 Farley v. McConnell, id. 630; Welsh v. N.Y. C. & H. K.R.R. CO., 63 l 610; Matter of Harvey, 3 Reaf, 214; Bearns v. Gould, 77 N. Y 455; Rock erigas v. East River Sav. Inst., 63 id. 460. § 2474. Jurisdiction not lost

, by defect in record The surrogate's court obtains jurisdiction in every case by the existence of the jurisdictional facts prescribed by statute, and by the citation or appearance of the nec essary parties. An objection to a decree or other determination, founded upon an omission therein, or in the papers upon which it was founded, of the recital or proof of any fact necessary to jurisdiction, which actually existed, or the failure to take any intermediate proceeding, required by law to be taken, is available only upon appeal. But, for the better protection of any party, or other person interested, the surrogate's court may, iv its discretion, allow such a defect to be supplied by amendment.

New in form; L. 1869, ch. 260, % 1 (7 Elm. 433); L 1870, ch. 359, 1, and L 1872, ch, 92 (9 Edm. 327). Bloom v. Burdick, I Hill, 130; Flinn u. Chase, 1 Den. 85; James v. Adams, 22 IIow. Pr. 409; Lawrence v. Par sons, 37 id. 26 ; Pumpelly v. Tinkham. 23 Barb. 321; Sheldon v. Wright, N. Y. 497 ; s. 0., 7 Barb. 39; Van Deusen v. Sweet, 5! N. Y. 378; Matter of Harvey, 3 Redf. 214; Bearns v. Gould, 77 N. Y. 455; Harrison v. Clarke, 20 Hun, 401; Jackson v. Robinson, 4 Wend. 436; Thayer v. Clark, 4 Abba Ch. 391; Field v. Van Cott, 15 Abb. N. S. 319; Corwin v. Merritt, 3 Bart 841; Brick v. Brick, 66 N. Y. 144.

§ 2475. Effect of exercise of jurisdiction.-Jurisdic. tion, once duly exercised over any matter, by a surra gate's court, excludes the subsequent exercise of juris. diction by another surrogate's court, over the sapie

matter, and all its incidents, except as otherwise spe. cially prescribed by law. Where a guardian has been duly appointed by, or letters testamentary or of admin. istration have been duly issued from, or any other special proceeding has been duly coinmenced in, a surrogate's court having jurisdiction, all further proceed. ings, to be taken in a surrogate's court, with respect to the same estate or matter, must be taken in the same court.

2 R. S. 222, & 12 (2 Edm. 232); 2 R. S. 61, 8 28 (2 Edm. 61); 2 R. S. 117, $ 24 (2 Edm, 121). People v. Wamsley, 15 Abb. Pr. 323; Brick v. Brick, 56 N. Y. 144 ; People v. Pelham, 14 Wend. 48; Dakin v. Demming, 6 Paige, 95; Tucker ý, Tucker, 4 Keyes, 136.

$ 2476. Exclusive jurisdiction. The surrogate's court of each county has jurisdiction, exclusive of every other surrogate's court, to take the proof of a will, and to grant letters testamentary thereupon, or to grant letters of administration, as the case requires, in either of the following cases :

1. Where the decedent was, at the time of his death, & resident of that county, whether his death happened there or elsewhere.

2. Where the decedent, not being a resident of the State, died within that county, leaving personal prop. erty within the State, or leaving personal property which has, since his death, come into the State, and remains unadministered,

3. Where the decedent, not being a resident of the State, died without the State, leaving personal property within that county, and no other; or leaving personal property which has, since his death, come into that county, and no other, and remains unadministered.

4. Where the decedent was not, at the time of his death, a resident of the State, and a petition for probate of bis will, or for a grant of letters of administration, under subdivision second or third of this section, has pot been filed in any surrogate's court, but real property of the decedent, to which the will relates, or which is subject to disposition under title fifth of this chapter, is situated within that county, and no other.

2 R. S. 73, & 23 (2 Edm. 75); L. 1837, ch. 460,2 1 (4 Edm. 486). Giesen v. Bridgford, 18 Hun, 73: Ryall v. Kennedy, 67 N.Y. 379; Kohler v. Knapp, 1 Bradf. 241; Graham v. Public Administrator, 4 id. 127 ; Isham y. Gib. bons, lid. 69; Bartlett 2, City of New York, 5 Sandf.44; llaggart ». Morgan, 6 N. Y. 422; Parsons v. Lyman, 20 id. 103; . C., 18 How. 193; Sedgwick 0. Ashburner, 1 Bradf. 105; Gulick v. Gulick. 21 How. 22; Soc., 33 Barba

92, Hollister, 10 How. 532; Vreeland v. McClelland, 1 Bradf. 393; Boitor v. Jacks, 6 Robt. 166.

$ 2477. Concurrent jurisdiction of two or more surrogates.--Where personal property of the decedent is within, or comes into two or more counties, under the circumstances specified in subdivision third of the last section; or real property of the decedent is situated in two or more counties, under the circumstances specified in subdivision fourth of the last section; the surrogate's courts of those counties have concurrent jurisdiction, exclusive of every other surrogate's court, to take the proof of the will and grant letters testamentary there. upon, or to grant letters of administration, as the case requires. But where a petition for probate of a will, or for letters of administration, has been duly filed in either of the courts so possessing concurrent jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of that court excludes that of the other. Id., % 24, amended.

§ 2478. Jurisdiction, how affected by locality of debts. For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon a surrogate's court, a debt, owing to a decedent by a resident of the State, is regarded as personal property, situated within the county where the debtor, or either of two or more joint debtors, resides; and a debt, owing to him by a domestic corporation, is regarded as per. sonal property, situated within the county where the principal office of the corporation is situated. But the foregoing provision does not apply to a debt evidenced by a bond, promissory note, or other instrument for the payment of money only, in terms negotiable, or payable to the bearer or holder. Such a debt, whether the debtor is a resident or a non-resident of the State, or a foreign or a domestic government, State, county, public officer, association, or corporation, is, for the purpose of so conferring jurisdiction, regarded as personal property, at the place where the bond, note, or other instru. ment is, either within or without the State,

New Beers, Ex'r, etc., v. Shannon, 73 N. Y. 292; Ferris v. Van Vechten, id. 113; Kohler v. Knapp, 1 Bradf. 241.

$ 2479 (Amended, 1883.] Jurisdiction in new or altered county. Where a new county has been heretofore, or is hereafter erected, or territory has been hereto

fore, or is hereafter transferred from one county to another, the jurisdiction of the surrogates' court of each of the counties affected thereby, to take the proof of a will, or to grant letters, depends upon the locality, when the petition is presented, of the place, where the property of the decedent is situated, or where the event occurred, as the case may be, which determines jurisdiction. If, before the erection of the new county, or the transfer of the territory, letters have been granted, upon the ground that the decedent died or resided within the county, the surrogates' court from which they were issued, has exclusive jurisdiction of the estate, and of all matters incidental thereto; and if the place where the decedent died or resided is embraced within another county, certified copies of any papers or proceedings, filed, entered, or recorded in the surrogates' court thereof, must be furnished, on the payment of the fees therefor, by the proper officer, to any person interested in the estate; and, upon the latter's request and pay. ment of the fees therefor, the proper officer of the court so having jurisdiction must file, enter, or record the same, in like manner and with like effect as the orig. inals. Where the letters were granted upon any ground, other than the decedent's death or residence within the county, the jurisdiction of the court froin which they were issued, remains unaffected by any change in the territorial limits of its county.

L. 1870, ch. 20, 881 and 2 (7 Edm. 582). Rugbee v. Surrogate of Yates, 2 Cow. 471.

§ 2480. Id.; transfer of proceedings to proper county.-A special proceeding pending in a surrogate's court, whose jurisdiction to entertain the same is taken away by the provisions of the last section, or in consequence of the erection of a new county, or the alteration of the territorial limits of a county, after this act takes effect, must be transferred, by order of the court in which it is pending, to the surrogate's court having jurisdiction ; and the latter court has the same jurisdiction, power, and authority with respect thereto, which the former court would have had, if the territorial limits of its county had not been changed. Now.

« PreviousContinue »