
    In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of the Executors, etc., of MARY H. VERPLANCK, Deceased.
    
      Final accounting — the surrogate may construe the provisions of a will, so far as may be necessary to enable him to make a proper decree for the distribution of the estate.
    
    Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Dutchess county, made on the final settlement of the accounts of the executors of Mary H. Verplanck, deceased.
    The court at General Term said: “I am of opinion that the surrogate had jurisdiction to pass on the validity and interpretation of the various provisions of the will, so far as was necessary to make a proper decree of distribution. Otherwise, it is plain that any party in interest, by raising a controversy, could prevent a distribution of the estate by the surrogate. I cannot find that such power has ever been denied. In Grill v. Brouwer (47 N. Y., 549), the' Court of Appeals, upon an appeal from a surrogate’s decree of distribution, passed upon the question whether a legacy under the terins of the will had lapsed. In Orton v. Orton (3 ICeyes, 486), on a similar appeal, it was determined whether, under the terms of the will, a legacy to the widow abated ratably with other legacies. On a like appeal in Ferrer v. Pyne (81 N. Y., 281), a question, identical with the one involved in this case, was determined.
    “ If there had been any doubt in the minds either of the profession or the court concerning the jurisdiction of the surrogate in this matter, I think the point would have been made in some of the cases- cited.”
    
      George■ IP Forster, for the executors.
    
      Malcolm G'amgjbell, for J. H. Hobart.
    
      S. A. Brewster, for Mary 0. Hobart.
    
      Henry He Forest Weelces, for Mary H. Hare, Elizabeth C. Hare, Chandler Hare and others.
   Opinion by

Cullen, J.

Present — Barnard, P: J., Hykman and Cullen, JJ.

Decree of surrogate modified according to opinion.- Order to be settled by Cullen, J.  