Forgham v. Forgham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Forgham v. Forgham

257 A.D. 902, 12 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8333

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 902 (Forgham v. Forgham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forgham v. Forgham, 257 A.D. 902, 12 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Only in one or two unimportant details is the scheme of the will interfered with by an allowance of dower. The fact that real estate was devised to the son “ to be his and his absolutely ” does not militate against dower in such real estate. (Close v. Eldert, 30 App. Div. 338; Roessle v. Roessle, 163 id. 344.) And the power, to the executor, to sell and convey the real estate “by good and sufficient deeds of conveyances” does not indicate an intention of the testator that dower should not attach. (Kimbel v. Kimbel, 14 App. Div. 570; Konvalinka v. Schlegel, 104 N. Y. 125.) The rule is universal that dower is favored by the law and cannot be cut off, except by express words or by inference compelled by the language of the whole will. All concur. (The interlocutory judgment is for plaintiff in an action to admeasure plaintiff’s dower in real estate.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Only in one or two unimportant details is the scheme of the will interfered with by an allowance of dower. The fact that real estate was devised to the son “ to be his and his absolutely ” does not militate against dower in such real estate. (Close v. Eldert, 30 App. Div. 338; Roessle v. Roessle, 163 id. 344.) And the power, to the executor, to sell and convey the real estate “by good and sufficient deeds of conveyances” does not indicate an intention of the testator that dower should not attach. (Kimbel v. Kimbel, 14 App. Div. 570; Konvalinka v. Schlegel, 104 N. Y. 125.) The rule is universal that dower is favored by the law and cannot be cut off, except by express words or by inference compelled by the language of the whole will. All concur. (The interlocutory judgment is for plaintiff in an action to admeasure plaintiff’s dower in real estate.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 902, 12 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forgham-v-forgham-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack