In re Brush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brush

247 A.D. 760

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1936·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court, Kings county, on a final accounting by the executrix which involved the interpretation of certain paragraphs of the will and the validity of an in terrorem provision, decree, in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom, unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent, payable out of the estate. We are of opinion that in this case there was a gift over to persons definitely named as entitled to the residue. (See Matter of Vandevort, 62 Hun, 612; Matter of Arrowsmith, 162 App. Div. 623; affd., 213 N. Y. 704; Hogan v. Curtin, 88 id. 162.) Present — Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ. [154 Misc. 480.]

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

In a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court, Kings county, on a final accounting by the executrix which involved the interpretation of certain paragraphs of the will and the validity of an in terrorem provision, decree, in so far as an appeal is taken therefrom, unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent, payable out of the estate. We are of opinion that in this case there was a gift over to persons definitely named as entitled to the residue. (See Matter of Vandevort, 62 Hun, 612; Matter of Arrowsmith, 162 App. Div. 623; affd., 213 N. Y. 704; Hogan v. Curtin, 88 id. 162.) Present — Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ. [154 Misc. 480.]

In re Brush, 247 A.D. 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

247 A.D. 760 (In re Brush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related