Dunshee v. Goldbacher

56 Barb. 579, 1870 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 4, 1870
StatusPublished

This text of 56 Barb. 579 (Dunshee v. Goldbacher) 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
Dunshee v. Goldbacher, 56 Barb. 579, 1870 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1870).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

Notwithstanding the devise and bequest in words, by the second clause of the will of Samuel Dunshee, to his executors and executrix, of all his estate, real and personal, his real estate on his death vested in his four sons, John, William ¡K., James and Henry W., subject to the gift by the third clause to his wife of one-third of the income of his estate during her widowhood, and which gift as to his real estate was, in substance and effect, a devise of one-third of his real estate to her during her widowhood. The power of sale given to the executors by the fourth clause of the will must be viewed as a power in trust merely.

[591]*591[New York General Term, April 4, 1870.

It is not only contingent upon the event of the testator surviving his wife, (which he did not,) but its exercise is also limited expressly to six months after- the decease of the testator.

Had the testator survived his wife, his executors having failed to exercise the power of sale within the time limited by the testator, I do not see how they could effectively exercise it after that period. (See Richardson v. Sharpe, 29 Barb. 222.)

On the facts stated, I am of the opinion that the executors of Samuel Dunshee cannot give or convey a good or perfect title to the premises in question.

I think that under the will of John Dunshee, his widow took a life' estate, and his children named in the will a vested remainder in fee in all the real estate of which he died seised, including, of course, the real éstate, or the estate or interest in the real estate, which he took and had as heir at law of his father, Samuel, or under or by his will.

There should be judgment on the facts submitted, according to the foregoing views.

Ingraham, Cardozo and Sutherland, Justices.]

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

Related

Richardson v. Sharpe
29 Barb. 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Barb. 579, 1870 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunshee-v-goldbacher-nysupct-1870.