Estate of Healy
Thomas v. Hosselkus
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Harrison, J.
The appellant filed a petition in the supe-
rior court for the removal of the respondent from the office of administrator of the estate of the above-named decedent and for the revocation- of his letters of administration, upon the ground that he had mismanaged the estate and neglected his duty as administrator thereof, setting forth in her petition, as the facts upon which she made her charges, that he had allowed one Ulty McCabe to take from the property of the estate thirteen head of cattle, and had not sought to regain them; that he had neglected to collect the amount of a note of George F. Raker, secured by mortgage, belonging to the estate, and had allowed the same to become barred by the statute of limitations; that he had allowed certain fraudulent claims against the estate, and had procured an order for their payment without any notice to the heirs, and had paid the same; that he had conspired with Ulty McCabe and James McCabe for the purpose of depriving the other heirs of the deceased of their inheritance, and to that end had procured the said Ulty McCabe to institute an action against all the-other heirs upon a pretended contract between him and the deceased; that no…
Dissenting Opinion
Henshaw, J.
We dissent, and think that the order should be reversed.
Concurring Opinion
Beatty, J.
I concur in the judgment
of affirmance. In doing so I deem it unnecessary to decide the question whether Hosselkus, as administrator, was a necessary party to the action of Ulty McCabe against the heirs—a question vital to that case, but in my opinion not material here. He was at all events not made a party to that action, and no judgment therein rendered can affect his right to keep in his possession the whole of the Healy estate for every purpose of the administration. When he fully administers the estate,—collects the assets, pays the debts, settles his accounts, and turns over the residue for distribution,—he has performed his entire duty. He is not bound to defend, and has no interest in defending, an action which will in no wise impede him in the full discharge of his trust.