
    (70 Misc. Rep. 583.)
    KIRKLAND v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.
    February, 1911.)
    1. "Infants’ (§ 33)—Allowance for Support—Application to Subrogate.
    All applications for allowances for an infant’s support from trust funds should Be made to the surrogate after the appointment of the general guardian.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Infants, Dec. Dig. § 33.]
    2. Infants (§ 33)—Allowance for Infant’s Support.
    , While the Supreme Court has the amplest jurisdiction in the matter under Code Civ. Proc. § 2842 et seq., the surrogate’s powers relating to guardians and wards are complete, and the best interests of an infant will be subserved by remitting applications for allowance for Ms support from trust funds to the surrogate.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Infants, Dec. Dig. § 33.]
    Action by Spencer Kirkland against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. Application for the payment of trust funds to an infant for his support. Application remitted to surrogate.
    Moses T. Barrows, for the motion.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   KAPPER, J.

[ 1 ] I have repeatedly stated, and so state again in this case, that there should be a general guardian of the infant’s property appointed by the surrogate to whom' all applications should be made for allowances for the infant’s support. The surrogate has a splendidly equipped bureau for the keeping of records of infants’ estates, and I am opposed to the many indiscriminate applications to the justices of this court for the payment of trust funds of an infant for his support. If such applications are made to the surrogate, his rec- ' ords constantly inform him of the condition of the infant’s estate, and on the arrival of the infant at majority something beneficial to the infant is of record, and probably on deposit, rather than a number of orders on file made by the justices of this court which without a system or record have gradually depleted, and perhaps extinguished, the entire fund.

Under Code, § 2842 et seq., the surrogate’s powers are complete, particularly those relating to an annual compulsory accounting by guardians on the surrogate’s own initiation, and, while,, of course, the Supreme Court has the amplest jurisdiction, the best interests of the infant will be subserved by remitting such applications to the surrogate, which, in the exercise of what I believe to be a sound discretion, I direct shall be done in this case.

Ordered accordingly.  