In re the Construction of the Will of Bemis

123 Misc. 255, 205 N.Y.S. 367, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 946
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedApril 22, 1924
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 Misc. 255 (In re the Construction of the Will of Bemis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Construction of the Will of Bemis, 123 Misc. 255, 205 N.Y.S. 367, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 946 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1924).

Opinion

Slater, S.

The testatrix died March 6, 1920, leaving certain shares of stock of several of the Standard Oil companies. Since her death these companies have earned large sums from which extraordinary stock dividends have been declared. It becomes necessary to construe the will in order to ascertain the intention of the decedent regarding the extraordinary dividends. Matter of Tod, No. 1, 85 Misc. Rep. 298. A special guardian has been named to represent living and unborn remaindermen. Lanier v. Taylor, 186 App. Div. 270, 277. The life tenants claim that these stock dividends were declared out of earnings accumulated subsequent to decedent’s death and should be apportioned to them as income.

It is urged by the special guardian that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court declaring that stock dividends are not income for purposes of taxation might affect a decision in the instant case. This same contention was raised in Matter of Roberts, 117 Misc. Rep. 794, and Surrogate Foley said: “ The accounting trustees and remaindermen claim that the recent decisions of Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418, and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 id. 189, overrule the authorities in New York cited above, and apply not only to computation of income tax, but to the distribution of stock dividends between life beneficiaries and remaindermen. The statement of the court in the latter case, that stock dividends are capital as between the tenant for life and remaindermen is obiter. That court expressly limited its decision to the taxability of such dividends under the income tax amendment to the Federal Constitution.”

I concur with the opinion of Surrogate Foley. The cases referred to in the United States Supreme Court cannot' affect the construction of wills and the distribution of property in this court [257]*257as it is a local question over which the courts of this state have exclusive jurisdiction. No federal question is involved and consequently the decisions of the Court of Appeals heretofore set forth are the law upon this subject and should be followed by this court. 15 C. J. 929, § 317; People ex rel. C. P., etc., R. R. Co. v. Wilcox, 194 N. Y. 383.

The word “ income,” used in the federal taxing statutes, and applied with reference to distribution of income between life tenants and remaindermen, has two distinct meanings. Under the former, it relates to the receipt of something which increases the taxpayer’s cash, or spendable funds. In the latter it is defined by the Personal Property Law of the State as follows:

“ § 10. The term income ’ of personal property as used in this article, means the income or profits arising from personal property and includes the interest of money and the produce of stock * *

It has been the policy of this state to prevent the accumulation of income ” in trust funds, even in the form of stock dividends (Matter of Megrue, 170 App. Div. 653; affd., 217 N. Y. 623), although now permitted. Pers. Prop. Law, § 17a.

The court is called upon to construe the 17th paragraph of the will, which reads:

I give, devise and bequeath the * * * remainder of my estate * * * to my Trustees In Trust * * * with power to divide my residuary estate into five equal parts or shares and to invest each part or share separately in such securities as they * * * shall deem prudent, and to receive the income of each part or share and apply the same as .follows: Of one of each of said parts or shares to the use for life of my niece Hazel Hunter, one for my sister Helen A. Ford, one for my niece Edith Hunter Brown, one for my sister-in-law Minnie L. Robertson, one for my brother-in-law George H. Bemis — the principal of the part or share designated for the use of such beneficiary shall go to such issue (issue of each one) absolutely * *

The special guardian for the infant remaindermen contends that in at least one instance the increased surplus was partly the result of revaluation of assets, and that the law of Thayer v. Burr, 201 N. Y. 155, should be applied. Matter of Schaefer, 178 App. Div. 117; affd., 222 N. Y. 533.

The following table will illustrate the name and number of shares of stock of the various corporations held by the testatrix at the date of the creation of the trust and the increase thereof by the declaration of stock dividends.

[258]*258The original holdings are expressed in terms of twenty-five dollars per share for greater convenience and to avoid confusion.

Corporation. Percentage Number No. held on of stock now Mar. 6, 1920. dividend. held.

Standard Oil Co. of New York.. 3,700 200% 11,100

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. 1,500 400% 7,500

Standard Oil Co. of California... 1,500 100% 3,000

Ohio Oil Co. (originally $25 par). 200 300% 800

Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)..... 1,324 150%

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 Misc. 255, 205 N.Y.S. 367, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-construction-of-the-will-of-bemis-nysurct-1924.