Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Jeremiah P. Robinson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Elizabeth Robinson, Deceased, Respondents; R. Burnham Moffat, as Special Guardian of Charlotte Leech and Robinson Leech, Appellant, 1899 — 160 N.Y. 692 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Jeremiah P. Robinson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Elizabeth Robinson, Deceased, Respondents; R. Burnham Moffat, as Special Guardian of Charlotte Leech and Robinson Leech, Appellant
160 N.Y. 692·New York Court of Appeals·1899·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Jeremiah P. Robinson et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Elizabeth Robinson, Deceased, Respondents; R. Burnham Moffat, as Special Guardian of Charlotte Leech and Robinson Leech, Appellant.
(Argued October 2, 1899;
decided October 24, 1899.)
Matter of Robinson, 40 App. Div. 30, affirmed.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 18, 1899, affirming so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county as denied an application by a special guardian for an award to him out of the estate of the decedent of compensation for his services in addition to statutory costs.
R. Burnham, Moffat for appellant.
Frank D. Sturges for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
The questions certified were as follows:
I. Does the Surrogate’s Court possess power to award to a special guardian, appointed on its own motion in proceedings for the judicial settlement of an executor’s accounts, any compensation for his services in addition to and apart from the statutory costs allowed by sections 2557-2561 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
II. If - the Surrogate’s Court has such power, then can it direct that any compensation which it may so award be paid out of the general estate of the decedent, where the infants represented by such guardian have a vested interest therein, subject, however, to be divested by death prior to decease of life tenant.
Order affirmed, without costs, on authority of Matter of Robinson (160 N. Y. 448).
First question certified, limited as indicated in the opinion, answered in the negative. Second question not answered.
All concur.