Hutchins v. Merrill

New York Supreme Court

Hutchins v. Merrill

8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 476

DecidedMay 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 476 (Hutchins v. Merrill) 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

Hutchins v. Merrill, 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 476 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Tappen, J.:

This is a controversy submitted without action, for the determination of certain questions arising from the provisions of the will of Eli Merrill, deceased.

There is in the hands of the executrixes, an accumulation of surplus rents of realty, which accumulation the will does not in terms dispose of. It is now claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs, that these rents follow the disposition, made by the will, of the residuary estate, and. that this residuary estate goes, on the death of the widow, to certain persons named in the will, and that they are entitled to immediate distribution of such rents. The widow is still living. After her death, the will provides that the estate shall be sold, or divided in the- proportions hereinafter specified, as a majority of the executors and pecuniary legatees may then agree and- determine; and such division of the estate or distribution of the proceeds to be made as follows:

$10,000, or the value thereof, to Eliza L. Thayer, a niece;

5.000, or the value thereof, to an adopted daughter;

5.000, or the value thereof, to a niece;

500, or the value thereof to a niece; and

500, or the value thereof, to another niece.

An estate of the value of $21,000, will therefore be required, on the death of the widow, to satisfy these provisions.

The undisposed residue or proceeds of the estate, are directed to be equally divided among such of the following named persons, as shall be living at the widow’s death. These persons are Ira and John Merrill, brothers of the testator, and certain nephews and nieces, who are named; and they are now represented by the plaintiffs, who claim to be entitled to the surplus rents, by reason of certain conveyances by the residuary devisees, of the residuary estate, as set forth in the case agreed on. It will be seen that, [478]*478before the residuary devisees take anything, the estate must respond to the extent of $21,000, in land or money, to satisfy the claims of the prior beneficiaries. The value of the estate is not stated. These prior beneficiaries are entitled to intervene between the surplus fund and the residuaries, and they have not been heard, nor are they represented in this ease. The plaintiff’s grantors or assignors, if presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate, on the death of the widow, under the provisions of the statute,

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

Tappen, J.:

This is a controversy submitted without action, for the determination of certain questions arising from the provisions of the will of Eli Merrill, deceased.

There is in the hands of the executrixes, an accumulation of surplus rents of realty, which accumulation the will does not in terms dispose of. It is now claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs, that these rents follow the disposition, made by the will, of the residuary estate, and. that this residuary estate goes, on the death of the widow, to certain persons named in the will, and that they are entitled to immediate distribution of such rents. The widow is still living. After her death, the will provides that the estate shall be sold, or divided in the- proportions hereinafter specified, as a majority of the executors and pecuniary legatees may then agree and- determine; and such division of the estate or distribution of the proceeds to be made as follows:

$10,000, or the value thereof, to Eliza L. Thayer, a niece;

5.000, or the value thereof, to an adopted daughter;

5.000, or the value thereof, to a niece;

500, or the value thereof to a niece; and

500, or the value thereof, to another niece.

An estate of the value of $21,000, will therefore be required, on the death of the widow, to satisfy these provisions.

The undisposed residue or proceeds of the estate, are directed to be equally divided among such of the following named persons, as shall be living at the widow’s death. These persons are Ira and John Merrill, brothers of the testator, and certain nephews and nieces, who are named; and they are now represented by the plaintiffs, who claim to be entitled to the surplus rents, by reason of certain conveyances by the residuary devisees, of the residuary estate, as set forth in the case agreed on. It will be seen that, [478]*478before the residuary devisees take anything, the estate must respond to the extent of $21,000, in land or money, to satisfy the claims of the prior beneficiaries. The value of the estate is not stated. These prior beneficiaries are entitled to intervene between the surplus fund and the residuaries, and they have not been heard, nor are they represented in this ease. The plaintiff’s grantors or assignors, if presumptively entitled to the next eventual estate, on the death of the widow, under the provisions of the statute,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-merrill-nysupct-1874.