Blanco v. Velez

New York Court of Appeals

Blanco v. Velez

66 N.E.2d 171, 295 N.Y. 224, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 846

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 7, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 66 N.E.2d 171 (Blanco v. Velez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanco v. Velez, 66 N.E.2d 171, 295 N.Y. 224, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 846 (N.Y. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Dye, J.

Jose Bayonet, a merchant seaman engaged in the service of the War Shipping Administration, lost his life on the high seas due to enemy action. The Maritime Service had provided a war risk insurance to the amount of $5,000 and this has been paid to the defendant-respondent herein, one of five surviving sisters, whom the deceased, when he signed the ship’s articles, had designated as beneficiary and next of kin to be notified in the event of death or emergency. Three of the sis *226 ters, the plaintiífs-appellants herein, now bring this action to compel their sister, Teresa, to share the proceeds of the policy equally among them and a sister in Puerto Rico, on the theory that she holds it for their benefit under an oral trust. The judgment of the trial court has been reversed and the complaint dismissed because the agreement sought to be enforced was deemed to violate the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subds. 1, 8, as amd.).

When the Legislature amended section 31 of the Personal Property Law it did not intend to abrogate the well-established doctrine applicable to an express paroi trust. The agreement of Bayonet to name his sister beneficiary would not have been enforcible if he had failed to do so but, having named her pursuant to the understanding that she would share the insurance proceeds with her sisters, she received the proceeds as trustee of an express trust to carry out this understanding.

The paroi trust sought to be enforced here is that made by the defendant-respondent when she agreed with the deceased, in the presence of others, to distribute the insurance moneys, upon receipt, equally among her sisters. The right sought here is not to enforce an oral' agreement, the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime, or to enforce an oral contract to establish a trust, but to enforce an express paroi trust which comes clearly within the rule of Hirsh v. Auer (146 N. Y. 13), and which does not come within the purñew of Personal Property Law, section 31, subdivision 1 and 8, as amended.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Lottghban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachee, JJ., concur; Medalie, J., deceased.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Dye, J.

Jose Bayonet, a merchant seaman engaged in the service of the War Shipping Administration, lost his life on the high seas due to enemy action. The Maritime Service had provided a war risk insurance to the amount of $5,000 and this has been paid to the defendant-respondent herein, one of five surviving sisters, whom the deceased, when he signed the ship’s articles, had designated as beneficiary and next of kin to be notified in the event of death or emergency. Three of the sis *226 ters, the plaintiífs-appellants herein, now bring this action to compel their sister, Teresa, to share the proceeds of the policy equally among them and a sister in Puerto Rico, on the theory that she holds it for their benefit under an oral trust. The judgment of the trial court has been reversed and the complaint dismissed because the agreement sought to be enforced was deemed to violate the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subds. 1, 8, as amd.).

When the Legislature amended section 31 of the Personal Property Law it did not intend to abrogate the well-established doctrine applicable to an express paroi trust. The agreement of Bayonet to name his sister beneficiary would not have been enforcible if he had failed to do so but, having named her pursuant to the understanding that she would share the insurance proceeds with her sisters, she received the proceeds as trustee of an express trust to carry out this understanding.

The paroi trust sought to be enforced here is that made by the defendant-respondent when she agreed with the deceased, in the presence of others, to distribute the insurance moneys, upon receipt, equally among her sisters. The right sought here is not to enforce an oral' agreement, the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime, or to enforce an oral contract to establish a trust, but to enforce an express paroi trust which comes clearly within the rule of Hirsh v. Auer (146 N. Y. 13), and which does not come within the purñew of Personal Property Law, section 31, subdivision 1 and 8, as amended.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Lottghban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachee, JJ., concur; Medalie, J., deceased.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.E.2d 171, 295 N.Y. 224, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanco-v-velez-ny-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack