Dusenbury v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dusenbury v. Smith

90 N.Y.S. 1094

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 1904·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think the trust deed executed by the plaintiff was void, not only because of the possible suspension of the absolute power of alienation for more than two lives, but also because the preliminary direction to retain the rents and profits of the real estate for the repayment to the trustees of the advances made by them to the plaintiff constitutes an unlawful accumulation of income. Killam v. Allen, 52 Barb. 605, cited with approval in Underwood v. Curtis, 127 N. Y. 523, 541, 28 N. E. 585; Hascall v. King, 162 N. Y. 134, 56 N. E. 515, 76 Am. St. Rep. 302. Judgment affirmed without costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

We think the trust deed executed by the plaintiff was void, not only because of the possible suspension of the absolute power of alienation for more than two lives, but also because the preliminary direction to retain the rents and profits of the real estate for the repayment to the trustees of the advances made by them to the plaintiff constitutes an unlawful accumulation of income. Killam v. Allen, 52 Barb. 605, cited with approval in Underwood v. Curtis, 127 N. Y. 523, 541, 28 N. E. 585; Hascall v. King, 162 N. Y. 134, 56 N. E. 515, 76 Am. St. Rep. 302. Judgment affirmed without costs.

Dusenbury v. Smith, 90 N.Y.S. 1094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

90 N.Y.S. 1094 (Dusenbury v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related