Cross v. Long Island Loan & Trust Co.

27 N.Y.S. 495, 75 Hun 533, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 533, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 656
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 12, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 495 (Cross v. Long Island Loan & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cross v. Long Island Loan & Trust Co., 27 N.Y.S. 495, 75 Hun 533, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 533, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 656 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the findings of a judge after a trial at the special term. The action was brought to obtain a construction of the will of John A. Cross, deceased, and the question involved is whether the sum of $29,500, the sum received by the trust company for premiums on the sale of certain securities belonging to the estate of the testator, constitutes a “profit,” within the meaning of the word as it is employed by the testator, and therefore belongs to the life tenants, or whether it forms part of the corpus of the estate, and belongs to the remainder-men. The fund in question represents the increase in value of the securities, and is therefore not “profit,” in the ordinary acceptation of that term. It is an accretion or increase from natural causes. Profit is acquisition of gain above expenditures arising from some transaction or operation. Under this will there was to be no traffic or operations, but only an investment of the fund. A decision of the surrogate of New York that an enhancement of the value of United States.bonds held in trust went to the remainder-man, and not to the life tenant, was approved by the court of appeals in Re Gerry, 103 N. Y. 445, 9 N. E. 235, and that case seems also to be decisive of this. In re Clark, 62 Hun, 275, 17 N. Y. Supp. 93; Bergen v. Valentine, 63 How. Pr. 225; and Duclos v. Benner, 62 Hun, 428, 17 N. Y. Supp. 168,—are all authorities to the same effect. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Smith
87 Misc. 2d 868 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1976)
Davis v. Witcher
171 P.2d 463 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
In re the Estate of Eger
139 Misc. 59 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1931)
Fairchild v. Gray
136 Misc. 704 (New York County Courts, 1930)
Linsly v. Bogart
67 N.Y. St. Rep. 653 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
In re Biden's Estate
33 N.Y.S. 196 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Proctor
92 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 N.Y.S. 495, 75 Hun 533, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 533, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cross-v-long-island-loan-trust-co-nysupct-1894.