Roche's Estate, In re, P--47
| Decision Date | 14 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. P--47,P--47 |
| Citation | 30 N.J.Super. 572,105 A.2d 452 |
| Parties | In re ROCHE'S ESTATE. . Chancery Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
John W. McGeehan, J., Newark, attorney for petitioner Marion D. keefe.
Charles C. Stalter, Paterson, attorney for defendant.
This is an application for the appointment of an ancillary administrator of the estate of Frank T. Roche, deceased, a nonresident of this State.
On July 27, 1951 Frank T. Roche and Lawrence V. Keefe, both residents of the State of New York, were riding in the automobile owned by Roche, in Clifton, where they collided with a truck owned by Port Murray Dairy Company, Inc., and operated by Alfred Taylor. As a result of the accident both Roche and Keefe were killed.
Greta M. Roche was appointed general administratrix of the estate of Frank T. Roche by the surrogate of Westchester County, New York. Marion D. Keefe was appointed administratrix ad prosequendam of the estate of Lawrence V. Keefe by the surrogate of Passaic County, to prosecute a cause of action under the Death Act against Roche, Port Murray Dairy Company, Inc. and Alfred Taylor. Thereafter Marion D. Keefe applied to this court for the appointment of an ancillary administrator of the estate of Frank T. Roche under the provisions of N.J.S. 3A:6--10, N.J.S.A.
The question for determination is whether or not there are asserts of the Roche estate of which the ancillary administrator could take charge and administer in the interest of creditors of the Roche estate.
Greta M. Roche, the domiciliary administratrix of Frank T. Roche, has filed an affidavit stating that there are no assets of the estate in this State. Keefe, on the other hand, alleges that Frank T. Roche was the owner of an indemnity policy of insurance in the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, which policy it is alleged is an asset of the Roche estate in the State of New Jersey within the meaning of the statute. With this contention I cannot agree.
Roche was a resident of the State of New York. The insurance company, by reason of its authorization to do business in that state, is also to be considered as a resident of that state. It would, therefore, appear that the policy of insurance, as a potential debt due the Roche estate, is an asset of that estate located in the State of New York rather than in the State of New Jersey. See Redzina v. Provident Institution, etc., 96 N.J.Eq. 346, 125 A. 133 (E. & A. 1924).
The applicant cites cases in other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roche's Estate, In re
...of a New York tribunal; and she appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court. 30 N.J.Super. 572, 105 A.2d 452. Ancillary administration in New Jersey is sought for the prosecution here of an action in tort for negligence attributed to Roche i......
-
Gardinier's Estate, In re, A--115
...insurance was an asset of that estate which was located in the State of New York, rather than in the State of New Jersey. 30 N.J.Super. 572, 105 A.2d 452 (Ch.Div.1954). The obvious purpose of that application was, as here, to secure service of process in New Jersey against the decedent's es......
- Fink v. Fink