
    Susan F. Platt, App’lt, v. Annie R. Platt et al., Rep’t.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed December 30, 1886.)
    
    Executors and administrators—Decedent’s estate—Lien of judgments AGAINST EXECUTORS, ETC.—3 R. S. (6TH ED.), 783, § 13.
    Where judgments against executors and afterward against a receiver included a dent charged against testator’s property and payable out of the proceeds of his estate, and none of the personal estate remained for that purpose. Held, That though the judgments were not strictly statutory liens upon the lands owned by testator as it has been declared they should not be by 3 R. S. (6th ed.), 783, § 13, yet there was sufficient to supp rt an order directing a referee to inquire concerning the liens of judgments on the estate and an order confirming his report.
    Appeal by Susan F. Platt, from an order directing the referee to inquire concerning the liens of judgments, and from an order confirming his report.
    
      William G. Wilson, for app’lt; Edward S. Clinch, for Aaron A. DeGrauw, Eesp’t.
    
      
       See S. C., ante, p. 501.
    
   Daniels, J.

That these two orders were regularly made, and that the final order was supported by the evidence taken by the referee, has already been considered and held, and no reason appears on this presentation of the case for doubting the correctness of the conclusions already declared. For while the judgment against the executors, and after-wards against the receiver, were not strictly statutory liens upon the lands owned by the testator, as it has been declared they should not be by 3 R. S. (6th ed.), 733, § 12, still as the debt included in them, was a charge against his property, and payable out of the proceeds of his estate, as long as no personal estate appears to have remained for that purpose, the orders which were made were sufficiently supported. The court had the power to determine this matter in directing what should be done with the proceeds of this real estate, and for the reasons assigned in the other appeals, these orders now again brought in question upon these appeals should be affirmed.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concur.  