TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Nickel

In the Matter of the Estate of Charles F. Nickel

In re the Estate of Nickel, 125 Misc. 493 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
June 12, 1924
Judges
Brien
Citations
125 Misc. 493209 N.Y.S. 6771924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123

Opinion of the Court — Brien

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

O’Brien, S.:

This is an executor’s accounting in which a question of commissions is presented for decision by reason of the fact that the executor previously acted and accounted as one of the temporary administrators of this estate. The decree settling the temporary administrator’s account and awarding commissions was filed on March 29, 1923, before chapter 649 of the Laws of 1923, which increased the rate of commissions to be awarded executors, administrators, and trustees went into effect (September 1, 1923). The accountant claims that as executor he is entitled to additional commissions on the same sum of which he was awarded commissions as temporary administrator to the extent of the difference between the commissions received by him as temporary administrator at the old rate and the amount he would be entitled to receive as executor under the increased new rate. He elected, however, under provision of section 285 of the Surrogate’s Court Act (Laws of 1920, chap. 928, as amd. by Laws of 1921, chap. 440), to take his commissions as temporary administrator. Having so elected and *494 having secured a decree awarding him commissions at the rate provided by the law as it was at the time of the entry of the decree he is barred from any further commissions as executor, calculated at the rate fixed in the amended statute upon the same sum of money.

The decree awarding commissions is res adjudicatei. (Matter of Blossom, N. Y. L. J. July 17, 1917; affd., 181 App. Div. 932 , no opinion.) He may have commissions as executor on any excess of property that has come into his hands, since the filing-of his account as temporary administrator.

Proceed accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11931: 11946: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Barrett124 Misc. 699 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1925)
  2. In re the Estate of Rosenthal141 Misc. 404 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  3. In re the Accounting of Marcy187 Misc. 264 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1946)

Most recent

  1. In re the Accounting of Marcy187 Misc. 264 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1946)
  2. In re the Estate of Rosenthal141 Misc. 404 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  3. In re the Estate of Barrett124 Misc. 699 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1925)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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