In re Roth

248 A.D. 903, 290 N.Y.S. 610, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8015
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 1936·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens county reversed on the law, with costs to appellant payable out of the estate, and the executrix directed to make payment of the legacy to the appellant, Rose Roth. The gift of $2,100 in paragraph ninth is absolute. The language following that [904]*904absolute gift, respecting time of payment, is, at best, a condition subsequent, which is inoperative because there is no gift over in the event of a breach of said condition. It is impossible to comply with the condition because the lot upon which the building was desired to be placed is not accessible to the street except over the land of another. Under these circumstances the language expressing a desire that such a building be erected is precatory, not mandatory. (Matter of Vandevort, 62 Hun, 612; Matter of Donald, 149 Mise. 142; Allen v. Trustees of Great Neck Free Church, 240 App. Div. 206.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

In re Roth, 248 A.D. 903, 290 N.Y.S. 610, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

248 A.D. 903 (In re Roth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Construction of the Will of Warriner
205 Misc. 272 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1954)
In re the Construction of the Will of Johnston
277 A.D.2d 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1950)