
    In re BRIDGEPORT BRASS CO. In re FLEISCHMAN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    February 28, 1913.)
    Appeal from Surrogate’s Court, Kings County. In the matter of the application of the Bridgeport Brass Company for the sale of the real estate of Charles H. Sanford, deceased, to pay debts. Rose Fleischman applies to be relieved of her purchase. From an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County (77 Mise. Rep. 69, 137 N. Y. Supp. 418), denying her application, she appeals. Affirmed. Harry Zirn, of Brooklyn, for appellant. Origen S. Seymour, of New York City (L. J. Luce, of New York City, on the brief), for respondent. Jacob Brenner, of Brooklyn, for respondent Teale, public administrator.
   JENKS, P. J.

The order is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the learned surrogate in his opinion. Mr. Jessup in his Surrogate’s Practice (4th Ed. pp. 1032 and 1033), commenting upon similar decisions by the same surrogate, suggests that maugre the amendments of 1904 the surrogate still has jurisdiction, under certain subdivisions of section 2481 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But see Redfield on Law and Practice of Surrogates’ Courts (7th Ed.) § 886 et seq., and Heaton on Surrogates’ Courts (1909 Revision) § 823. Mr. Jessup further suggests that the surrogate should assert and exercise jurisdiction, if possible, in order to avoid remission to another jurisdiction. But , Mr. Redfield remarks: “Under the old practice, the proceedings subsequent to the decree authorizing the sale were as cumbersome and complicated as those which preceded it; but the wholesale amendments of 1904 have greatly simplified the procedure, and left the representative little to do except to account for the proceeds.” The question presented is one that should be determined by the Court of Appeals. The order-is affirmed, without costs.  