
    In the Matter of the Probate of the alleged Will of M. Louise Brown, Deceased.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 13, 1888.)
    Wills—Probate op—Parties to the proceedings—Receiver in supplementary PROCEEDINGS.
    A receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings of the estate of the husband of the decedent, has not such an interest in the estate as to entitle him to contest the probate of the will of the wife of the judgment-debtor, by the terms of which will she has deprived her husband of all interest in her estate.
    Appeal from an order of Hon. Abraham Lott,, surrogate, dated October 19, 1887, striking out the objections to the probate of the will of M. Louise Brown, filed by William B. Hill, receiver of George W. Brown, the husband of said deceased.
    After the death of said M. Louise Brown and before the probate of her will, the appellant, at the instance of Thomas H. Bobbins, a judgment-creditor of George W. Brown to a large amount, was appointed receiver of all the property of said George W. Brown, including equitable interests and things in action, effects and estate, real and personal.
    The receiver claimed by his objections that the will was invalid and illegal, and demanded a construction thereof; thus seeking to have declared, in effect, that said M. Louise¡ Brown died intestate, and thus throwing a greater amount ■of property into the hands of George W. Brown, the judgment-debtor, than was given him by the will.
    Said objections were striken out, after the receiver had made himself a party, on the sole ground that he was not a, person entitled to contest the probate of said will.
    
      Phillips & Awry for W. B. Hill, receiver; George R. Brown, for proponent and resp’t; John H. Kemble, special guardian.
   Dykman, J.

The last will and testament of M. Louise Brown, the wife of George W. Brown, so disposed of her property as to deprive him of all interest in her estate.

The receiver of the property of the husband appointed in supplementary proceedings instituted by his creditors filed objections to the will, and desired to contest the same before the surrogate.

The surrogate struck out the objections and refused to permit the receiver to appear and contest the probate of the will, because he was not interested in the estate of the •deceased.

If the will was set aside and declared invalid, its destruction would afford the creditors of the husband no interest in his wife’s estate. They would still have a claim against the husband and they would have nothing more.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.  