This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ... light was surplusage and might be ignored without affecting the substantial compliance with the statute, or, if a stricter rule be insisted on, it was a mere irregularity curable by amendment, not depriving the court of jurisdiction and not, in any event, contestable collaterally, as is attempted here. In view of the ineffectual attempts of the plaintiffs heretofore to procure satisfaction of the surrogate's decree out of the proceeds of the sale in question, it would appear to be necessary for this court to give the plaintiffs the relief sought. Everything disclosed in the case shows the validity of the plaintiffs' claim, and resort to this court is only made in order that a just debt--so determined by the surrogate--may be, as far as possible, paid out of the fund which is in the hands of the Supreme Court and under its control. Judgment for plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs. 25 Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County, June, 1913. Vol. 81. Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Sickler P. Weed and Leonard J. Weed, as Surviving Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Joseph L. Weed, Deceased. (Surrogate's Court, Saratoga County, June, 1913.) Executors and administrators--surcharging accounts of--wills--estoppel. Where certain real estate was devised to testator's children in equal shares subject to the life estate of their mother, and the executors acting under a naked power given by the will sold a farm to one of testator's children for $5,000, and it appears that one of the residuary devisees, seeking to surcharge the accounts of the executors with a loss upon allegations that they were negligent in selling the farm for less than its fair market value without proper effort to obtain such value, had stated that if all the rest were willing ...