Bank of Delaware v. Delaware Trust Company

280 A.2d 534, 1971 Del. LEXIS 214
Supreme Court of Delaware·Decided June 29, 1971·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this proceeding arising from a request for instructions as to the proper distribution of the corpus of the trust, the Chancery Court’s opinion appears at 269 A.2d 256. For the reasons therein stated, we affirm the conclusion of the Chancery Court as to the intent of the testatrix. It is our opinion that the language of the Will, when viewed in its entirety and in the light of surrounding circumstances, is abundantly clear to warrant the conclusion reached by the Chancery Court as to intent.

The appellants rely upon Bedyk v. Bank of Delaware, Del.Supr., 176 A.2d 196 (1961). We find no error in the Chancery Court’s application of the rule of that case.

The appellants also complain that the Chancery Court relied upon certain cases in other jurisdictions holding that when contingent gifts are made to a class, determination of the membership of the class is deferred until the gift vests. In view of our holding that the intent of the testatrix is clear on the face of the Will, we do not reach the latter point.

The order below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bank of Delaware v. Delaware Trust Company, 280 A.2d 534, 1971 Del. LEXIS 214 (Del. 1971).

280 A.2d 534 (Bank of Delaware v. Delaware Trust Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Fiduciary Trust Co.
445 A.2d 927 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1982)
Riggs National Bank of Washington, DC v. Zimmer
304 A.2d 69 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1973)
Bank of Delaware v. Bank of Delaware
289 A.2d 639 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1972)
Bank of Delaware v. Estate of Kane
285 A.2d 440 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1971)
In Re the Last Will & Testament of Dixon
280 A.2d 735 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1971)