
    In re BRUSH’S ESTATE.
    (No. 6056.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 19, 1914.)
    Executors and Administrators (§ 87)—Collection of Assets—Compromise of Claim—Confirmation.
    Where a petition for the confirmation of a compromise by an administrator of a claim belonging to the estate did not disclose sufficient reasons for the compromise at the amount stated, the order of confirmation will be reversed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 323, 384-392; Dec. Dig. § 87.*]
    Appeal from Order of Surrogate, New York County.
    From an order of the surrogate confirming an order authorizing the administrator of the estate of Jacob J. Brush, deceased, to compromise a claim, Eliza E. Brush appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
    James E. Kelly, of New York City, for appellant.
    John A. Bolles, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the application denied, upon the ground that the moving petition fails to disclose sufficient reasons for the compromise of the claim against Lillie M. Taylor at the amount stated, without prejudice to a renewal of the application upon showing 'sufficient facts.  