TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Davis

In the Matter of the Estate of Frank Faville Davis

In re the Estate of Davis, 120 Misc. 457 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
March 15, 1923
Judges
Foley
Citations
120 Misc. 457

Opinion of the Court — Foley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Foley, S.

In this accounting proceeding certain creditors seek to examine the administratrix under section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The accounts filed do not set forth the amount of insurance paid to her, individually, as the beneficiary of insurance on the life of her husband. The creditors desire to ascertain information concerning the proceeds of the policies purchased with annual premiums in excess of $500. Objection is raised by the administratrix to this line of questioning. I am of the opinion that the objection must be sustained. The life insurance paid to the widow, even though purchased by the husband with premiums in excess of $500, is not part of the estate of decedent (Matter of Thompson, 184 N. Y. 36 ), although the excess is primarily liable for "his debts. Dom. Eel. Law, § 52. The rights of creditors under the latter section must be enforced by an action to establish the lien. Matter of Thompson, supra; Kittel v. Domeyer, 175 N. Y. 205 ; Guardian Trust Company v. Straus, 139 App. Div. 884 ; affd., 201 N. Y. 546 . The administratrix may be examined in such an action. The provisions of section 263 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, however, confine the examination to the “ administration of the estate or fund ” by the accounting representative. It so happens in this case that the widow is the administratrix. If she were not the representative, this court would have no jurisdiction to order her examination concerning funds which do not belong to the estate, or to compel her to pay over the surplus insurance moneys to an administrator or executor. Her position would be similar to any other debtor of an estate, and a recovery against such debtor cannot be enforced by a decree of this court. Proceed accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11936: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Ebbets149 Misc. 260 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1933)
  2. In re the Estate of Nussbaum158 Misc. 380 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1936)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Nussbaum158 Misc. 380 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1936)
  2. In re the Estate of Ebbets149 Misc. 260 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Accounting of Thompson, 76 N.E. 879 (N.Y. 1906) 22
Kittel v. Domeyer, 67 N.E. 433 (N.Y. 1903) 30
Guardian Trust Co. v. Straus, 139 A.D. 884 (1910) 14
Guardian Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Straus, 95 N.E. 1129 (N.Y. 1911) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list