Garey's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 07 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 77046,77046 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of John GAREY, Deceased. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court. New Jersey County Court — Probate Division |
Jay F. Dailey, Roselle, for movants.
Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, Newark (John W. Hayden, Jr., Newark, appearing), for executors.
FELLER, J.C.C.
On November 24, 1955 John Garey died testate in Elizabeth, New Jersey. His will was admitted to probate on December 5 of that year and the executors, Carlton R. Garey and John R. Garey, named by him duly received letters testamentary on that date. Pursuant to R.R. 4:105--2, four of the decedent's daughters by a complaint filed June 17, 1960 instituted an action for an order to show cause why the executors should not account, no accounting having been previously made. The order issued and on its return date, August 9, 1960, judgment was rendered directing them to account within 45 days. The account was filed October 4, 1960.
For the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of the executors, Jay F.Dailey, Esq., the attorney for the four daughters who are legatees, served a notice on the executors' attorneys to take oral depositions of the executors at his office on October 31, 1960. They appeared on that date but he refused to examine them, insisting that one be excused from the room while the other was being examined. His contention was they were merely witnesses and that under R.R. 4:20--2 examination of them could be had out of the presence of each other. John W. Hayden, Jr., Esq., attorney for the executors, refused to permit this, contending that they were 'parties' and that under that same rule parties always have a right to be present when a witness is being examined. Mr. Dailey on November 4, 1960 obtained an order to show cause why an order should not be made directing each executor to be examined in the absence of each other. The attorney for the executors on the other hand served him, apparently on that same day, with a notice to take oral depositions of his four clients at their offices in Newark.
Mr. Dailey thereupon made application for and did obtain an order for the executors to show cause why an order should not be made (a) directing that the depositions of Agnes G. Bethlehem, Marion L. Garey, Margaret S. Dyke and Estelle G. Richardson should not be taken pursuant to notice given in connection therewith, by Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, Esqs., attorneys for Carlton R. Garey and John R. Garey, dated November 1, 1960, or (b) that the depositions of Agnes G. Bethlehem, Marion L. Garey, Margaret S. Dyke and Estelle G. Richardson be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice, and (1) that the taking of said depositions be at the expense of Carlton R. Garey and John R. Garey; (2) if taken out of the State of New Jersey, that the attendance of counsel for said persons at the place designated for the taking of their depositions be authorized at the expense of said Carlton R. Garey and John R. Garey, or (c) that the taking of said depositions be only on written interrogatories, or (d) if the taking of said depositions be authorized, that the scope of said examination be limited as to such matters as this court shall determine to be proper, and (e) if authorized, such depositions shall be taken only after the completion of the taking of depositions of Carlton R. Garey and John R. Garey, executors.
Briefs were filed and oral argument was heard.
R.R. 4:20--2 reads as follows:
'After notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and upon notice and for good cause shown, the court may make an order that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only at some designated place other than that stated in the notice, or that it may be taken only on written interrogatories, or that certain matters shall not be inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be limited to certain matters, or that the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or attorneys, or that after being sealed the depositions shall be opened only by order of the court, or that secret processes, developments, or research need not be disclosed, or that the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court; or the court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.'
The first question presented is: Are executors in proceedings arising from an estate accounting 'parties,' and are they parties to an action? Black's Law Dictionary, 3d ed., page 1329 defines 'parties' as follows:
A party is ordinarily one who has or claims an interest in the subject of an action or proceeding instituted to afford some relief to the one who sets the law in motion against another person or persons. Interest, or the claim of interest, is the statutory test as to the right to be a party to legal proceedings almost without exception.' Hughes v Jones, 116 N.Y. 67, 22 N.E. 446, 448 (Ct.App.1889). New Jersey cases clearly indicate that co-administrators and co-executors are in the eyes of the law one person. The general rule is that several co-administrators or co-executors are in law only one person representing the testator, and acts done by one in reference to the administrations of the testator's goods are deemed the acts of all, inasmuch as they have a joint and entire authority. Shreve v. Joyce, 36 N.J.L. 44 (Sup.Ct.1872). Furthermore, co-executors and co-administrators must sue and be sued jointly. Dickerson v. Robinson, 6 N.J.L. 195 (Sup.Ct.1822).
In re Bloomer's Estate, 37 N.J.Super. 85, 117 A.2d 17 (App.Div.1955), is far more in point. This was a proceeding involving an objection of a beneficiary to the allowance of an executor's fee. The matter originally was heard by the County Court in an informal manner and the Appellate Division remanded for a rehearing. In doing so, the court found, 37 N.J.Super., at p. 93, 117 A.2d at p. 21 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Division of Youth and Family Services v. P.M.
...(a party is "the person or entity beneficially interested or personally sought to be held liable"); In re Garey's Estate, 65 N.J.Super. 585, 588, 168 A.2d 273 (Cty.Ct.1961) (a party is " 'ordinarily one who has or claims an interest in the subject of an action or proceeding instituted to af......
-
Will of Maxwell, Matter of
...its handling of the trust assets during the final accounting period to entitle them to at least pursue discovery. See In re Garey, 65 N.J.Super. 585, 590, 168 A.2d 273 (Union County Ct.1961) (quoting In re Perrone's Estate, 5 N.J. 514, 525, 76 A.2d 518 (1950) ("Whenever the fiduciary relati......
-
Selig v. Selig
...of all, inasmuch as they have joint and entire authority. In Re Greims Will, 140 N.J.Eq. 183, 54 A.2d 219 (1947) and Re Garey's Estate, 65 N.J.Super. 585, 168 A.2d 275 [217 Pa.Super. 11] (1961). Pennsylvania law is to the same effect: Fesmire v. Shannon, 143 Pa. 201, 208, 22 A. 898. In fact......
-
Stone v. Jones
...court was more succinct in stating that "co-executors and co-administrators must sue and be sued jointly." In re Garey's Estate, 65 N.J.Super. 585, 168 A.2d 273, 275 (1961). Although this state has no cases directly on this question, our case law has suggested the answer. In Birmingham Trus......